Solidifying the void - nondev version

[Kestenvarn]

Umm. Not once in this thread have I seen a screenshot.

What does it look like?

[ivanovic]

What does it look like?

http://www.wesnoth.org/wiki/Screenshots
(Though the look did change after 1.3.4 again. But hey, it is still in development...)

[Kestenvarn]

Whoa!

It should really fade more gradually than that, should it be used at all. Poor background aside, the current effect is simply jarring.

[dthurston]

Whatever you do with the background, it should scroll with the rest of the map. In 1.3.4 it looks very weird with the wood.

[irrevenant]

The "you can't see this far" overlay also peters out just short of the wood background, which looks odd.

[DDR]

"I liked it better the way it was."

I think it would be best for map makers to pad their maps so we don't come across the edge when playing. That way, this would be a moot point. Still, I hear the old system was hard to code... Why not let the map editor edit the outside rim? If the background wood is made into a terrain, the map maker can leave in the wood, or make an old-style contentious world.

[Iris]

I think it would be best for map makers to pad their maps so we don't come across the edge when playing. That way, this would be a moot point. Still, I hear the old system was hard to code... Why not let the map editor edit the outside rim?

You say, like having extra rows (or columns?) in the map file, hardcoded in the game in such way they cannot be accessed by units but the player can see them? Not sure if this is what you meant, but for example, you could surround the map with water terrain that the player can see, but not access, like the old guessing system's way of doing it.

Not sure if I'm making myself understood, perhaps I should make a quickie image to demonstrate this idea. And it might be easier to code than the actual and old mechanisms. The only downside is that map designers would have to do some extra work in order to have their maps working on this system. BTW, this might generate hexes with negative coordinates.

[taro]

I don't care much about how the area outside of the map looks, the void does the job for me . I'm not a fan of the current half hexes but I can live with them, also with the implementation of the map border in version 1.3.4 (if the speed gets optimized). Eleazars proposal also looks nice.

But I strongly disagree with adding impassable hexes outside of the map which look in any way similar to normal map terrain (like it's drawn in zookeepers mock-up). This is very confusing, especially for multiplayer games, where you often use the space at the map border for fights or to move around enemy units. There should always be a clearly visible border and a difference between the map terrain and the whatever thing that is filling up the area outside of the map.

Whatever you do with the background, it should scroll with the rest of the map.

Agreed.

Why not let the map editor edit the outside rim? If the background wood is made into a terrain, the map maker can leave in the wood, or make an old-style contentious world.

I would prefer to allow only one image for the background (which could be specified in the scenario or map config, but should not be part of the map file itself), so that all hexes outside of the map look the same.
If you really allow to use "normal" terrain for the impassable area outside of the map then there should be a line drawn which clearly marks the border of the passable area of the map (better visible than the line in zookeepers mock-up).

[SkeletonCrew]

Since it seems more people are following this thread than the one in art dev I'm posting this follow up here.

I just added a new test version in trunk which will probably get included in 1.3.5:
* The rectangle shape is back and has a 0.5 hex border.
* The wood has been changed to another pattern also tiles in the offmap area have this pattern (used in the hexcake MP scenario).
* There's been a transition border to avoid confusion between the real map and the automatic generated maps.
* The background doesn't scroll, this is a feature.

The following things haven't been done yet:
* The transition border hasn't been added at the top and bottom yet.
* The off map terrain looks odd on shrouded maps, also the transition border looks odd there.
* It's possible to generate a better background (I'm no artist ) in order to do so modify wood.png and alpha.png.
* The transition border might need slightly other colours (it looks good on my old CRT but bad on my LCD)
* The _off^_usr terrain gets a ToD colouring which looks bad (just play hexcake).
* Some transitions at the border look bad (show black terrains).

Before I start to fix these points, I'd like to get some _constructive_ feedback and hopefully a better background.

[irrevenant]

Re: DDR's comment that "I think it would be best for map makers to pad their maps so we don't come across the edge when playing." I'm pretty sure he meant to make the map bigger with genuine hexes. This was discussed in the Art Development(?) forum a while back. The idea is that you make the maps larger than they are now, but only the current map area is interesting to the players. eg. there are no villages or keeps in the new areas of the map.

This, IMO is a very good idea and makes the whole border issue basically moot 'cos units will almost never find a reason to wander as far out as the border.

[SkeletonCrew]

Re: DDR's comment that "I think it would be best for map makers to pad their maps so we don't come across the edge when playing." I'm pretty sure he meant to make the map bigger with genuine hexes.

The problem with that approach is what is big enough? A 20" or a 30" display? And what happens when a 40" display will be sold?
And some people do use multiple monitors...

[Jetrel]

* The background doesn't scroll, this is a feature.

Visually, it really should scroll, because if we have a wooden background, the map works with the visual metaphor of a game board sitting on a wooden table - the same is true of most other patterns (stone, etc). Scrolling works with the visual metaphor, not-scrolling breaks the metaphor.

I strongly suggest changing this.

[irrevenant]

Re: DDR's comment that "I think it would be best for map makers to pad their maps so we don't come across the edge when playing." I'm pretty sure he meant to make the map bigger with genuine hexes.

The problem with that approach is what is big enough? A 20" or a 30" display? And what happens when a 40" display will be sold?
And some people do use multiple monitors...

I was generalising slightly when I said it rendered the border issue moot. It doesn't completely negate the concern but it does lessens it dramatically. And even if it didn't, it's a good idea anyway.

I think it's fine for the map border to display in edge cases (people with multiple monitors, 40" monitors etc). So, in answer to your question, a border of 15 hexes in each direction should be more than adequate for the vast number of scenarios.

In 5-10 years time if that becomes too small due to advances in monitor technology it can be padded out again.

Ultimately though, practical monitor resolution is limited by the resolution of the human eye. People hook PCs up to their giant digital TVs now, but they have to sit back further to comfortably look at them, so higher resolutions are impractical.

[Naeddyr]

My suggestion: instead of wood, make the edges run together with the UI, ie. replace the wood with the "stone" or whatever what that is in the GUI.

[taro]

* The rectangle shape is back and has a 0.5 hex border.

Then why do you add a full hex tile at the top of the map (according to the grid I assume this is an inaccessible hex)? If you have the map grid switched off (like I mostly have it) these hexes look like normal map hexes. This is very irritating. If you plan an attack and wrongly consider such a hex as accessible because it looks like an accessible one the complete attack will fail and the game may be lost.
If you want the top border to be a straight line please add only half-hexes, not full hexes. The accesible part of the map always should have a sharp and obvious border.

I thinks this map discussion is a bit campaign vs. multiplayer. It looks like that for campaigns people prefer to have the imagination of an infinite map while for multiplayer it is essential to have a well defined (and visible) map border. Is there any way to have both options work?

So, in answer to your question, a border of 15 hexes in each direction should be more than adequate for the vast number of scenarios.

15 hexes to send some troops through the fog and assassinate the leader?

A minor thing: What is the small stripe on the left border of the map? It looks a bit ugly.