Topic: To all map creators; Terrain menu

31 — 40 of 83 Posts ‹‹ previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 next ››

kaputtnik Topic Opener Joined: 2013-02-18, 20:48 Posts: 2554 OS: Archlinux Version: current master One Elder of Players Location: Germany	Posted at: 2015-03-30, 19:12 GunChleoc wrote: This sounds like something that could be implemented, if we want it. It is a restriction rather than a resource though, so we should call it that I just used "resource" to describe the usability, because it is similar and a mapmaker knows this functionality Implementation might be less trivial than it sounds I think this too. Should the choosen tree values belong to a whole map or to a specific area of a map? Just thoughts about specifying an specific tree area on a map: We have to think about, in which way this could be implemented in the editor and how this areas could be shown there. f.e. marking an area with a tree-tool and place grayish trees there. Maps must be able to store specific areas with the appropriate tree values Foresters in game have to know about those areas Automatic tree seeding must also take care of this areas What about placing multiple areas, areas with different types of trees? Top Quote

SirVer Joined: 2009-02-19, 15:18 Posts: 1440 One Elder of Players Location: Germany - Munich	Posted at: 2015-03-30, 22:03 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

Tibor Joined: 2009-03-23, 23:24 Posts: 1377 One Elder of Players Location: Slovakia	Posted at: 2015-03-30, 23:02 I think current aproach is good one. Perhaps a finetuning of parameters would be enough to fix the issue. Top Quote

king_of_nowhere Joined: 2014-09-15, 18:35 Posts: 1668 One Elder of Players	Posted at: 2015-03-31, 02:24 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

einstein13 Joined: 2013-07-29, 00:01 Posts: 1116 One Elder of Players Location: Poland	Posted at: 2015-03-31, 12:05 king_of_nowhere wrote: so I wanted to showcase the different ecosystem of the different islands. So now I don't understand why do you want to change the layout of Terrain menu? Current stuff is exactly what you need. Different combinations of ecosystems. You have 4 of them. Is it not enough- create you own I will be glad to see something else! (and use that too! ) Really, if you live near the baltic sea, you shoul take the cruise from Stockholm to Turku and back, you won't regret it. I don't have money for that journey, but for sure one day 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. Map: Crossing the horizonts, but there is only one ecosystem: greenland Although I don't think the AI is capable of expanding over a bunch of communicating small islets It isn't. Only when FIRST spot is correctly expanded, then the rest of them can be colonized too. I got lots of troubles when playing with the AI. On most of maps with lack of initial terrain, the AI had tones of problems to build first ship. einstein13 calculations & maps packages: http://wuatek.no-ip.org/~rak/widelands/ backup website files: http://kartezjusz.ddns.net/upload/widelands/ Top Quote

Tibor Joined: 2009-03-23, 23:24 Posts: 1377 One Elder of Players Location: Slovakia	Posted at: 2015-03-31, 21:19 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 Topic Opener Joined: 2013-02-18, 20:48 Posts: 2554 OS: Archlinux Version: current master One Elder of Players Location: Germany	Posted at: 2015-03-31, 21:26 einstein13 wrote: So now I don't understand why do you want to change the layout of Terrain menu? I will tell from my view: I want to use different watertypes for the coast. A stripe with Blackland water, then a stripe with Desert water and after all a stripe from Summer or from Winter. I want also use different Watertypes to make an illusion of shallow water. With the current manu i have allways to search in the tabs for the right watertype i want to use and thats not satisfying Same goes for mountains: I don't like to use only one world type of mountain terrain for one mountain (chain). So i have to search in the tabs again. If i want to put an area of a snowy mountain where buildings couldn't be build and is snow, i have to search the tabs again. With the current menu i could not see which trees grow on which terrains. So i place terrains and afterwards put trees on this terrain which maybe do not grow. Looking in a table which is stored extern from the editor as mentioned in another thread isn't satisfying to me. Mapmaking should be more fun than work and it is work enough to make a map balanced for the players. You could say that all of these circumstances could be solved if someone has enough experience with mapmaking and after 10 to 20 maps he knows in which tabs he could find the terrain he has to use to solve such problems. But i think this isn't the goal. Lets think about, what informations are importand for the terrains menu, which informations should be shown in it. Currently we have: The terrain types itself How each terrain type could be used in a game (buildable, swimmable, only roads could be build and so on) The terrain affinitys (which ecosystem belongs to a terrain type) The current menu shows the 3. point in the tabs, the 1. point is shown in each tab and the buildability (point 2) is shown with grayish icons on each terrain type. What lacks is the information about: Which tree should i place on a specific terrain? You could say, this information is stored in the terrain affinitys (point 3/tabs), but for me it is not. I don't know the affinitys for umbrella trees or conifers. And even if know this, i couldn't see which tree grows good on a specific terrain type. I think this lacking information should be shown in a convenient way. If you finished your work on terrain affinitys and we have only one value for each ecosystem, we could make the terrain menu more efficient But some circumstances won't be fixed at all (f.e. mixing of terrains) Edited: 2015-03-31, 21:59 Top Quote

einstein13 Joined: 2013-07-29, 00:01 Posts: 1116 One Elder of Players Location: Poland	Posted at: 2015-04-01, 00:09 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: I want to use different watertypes for the coast. (...) Same goes for mountains: (...) 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. 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. 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 Topic Opener Joined: 2013-02-18, 20:48 Posts: 2554 OS: Archlinux Version: current master One Elder of Players Location: Germany	Posted at: 2015-04-01, 09:09 einstein13 wrote: Ok, now I understand why you want to change the layout,(..) The idea of the new layout is: Get rid of the old differences between the worlds, reorder the things a mapmaker has to know and add a information about trees. Because its difficult to put in there more than three information types (Terrain patterns, buildability and terrain affinitys) we have to change one of this information. So what about replacing terrain affinitys with treesorts? 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 There are 4 kind of treesorts and therefore 4 kinds of terrain affinitys and those values are sticked together. It should be possible to exchange these informations in the terrain menu. Doing so we have following informations to show in the terrain menu: The terrain types The buildability Treesort (former terrain affinitys) In my opinion we have to put the buildability on the tabs, where each tab contain the appropriate terrain type and use the grayish icons for the trees. Doing so would imho bring more clarification on the question: Which terrain let which tree grow good? If we use the same images for the grayish icons like we have on the tree tabs in the immovable menu, it should be easy to recognize the context. The old grayish icons for the "is" values in the init.lua file for the buildability isn't needed anymore in the terrain menu (but still has to be there for compatibility reasons), but we need one new value for the depending of terrain type <-> tree. This is currently stored in three values (temp., humidity and fertility). 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. Please make new thread about that and explain there what you need to finish your calculations. If a few people get informed about the framework conditions i am sure there is someone who wants to help 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. 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. I think something like "tree resources" could be implemented later. We first have to solve the easier problems @ king_of_nowhere: Would a terrain menu like described above (where the treesorts are shown on each terrain type) helped you with the archipelago? Of course you had a restriction of terrain types you want to use if the coloring not fit, but you would be aware of the trees... Top Quote

einstein13 Joined: 2013-07-29, 00:01 Posts: 1116 One Elder of Players Location: Poland	Posted at: 2015-04-02, 08:21 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: The terrain types The buildability Treesort (former terrain affinitys) I've told you: now there is sorted everything, but it is sorted in another order: Treesorts (type of old world) Buildability 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

‹‹ previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 next ››