Minimap Colors

[fabi]

Hello.

The Minimap got a second mode for displaying the terrain.
While the classic one takes the terrain's symbol image (in most cases the same that represents the terrain in the editor's palette)
and scales it down, the new one fills the hex's minimap region with an to the base terrain associated color.
In case of mixed terrains a mix of the colors is used.

I like to call the classic mode "Satellite View" and the new one "Semantic View".

They may look quite different.
A large plain mixed from farmland, grass, dirt, roads and other aliases of "flat" terrain
is colorful in satellite but just single colored in semantic view.

The idea is to give the player a map view that is less blurred and gives a more concrete tactical overview.

The feature is working well enough in the development codebase but it looks ugly.
I hope this is mostly an issue of adjusting the used colors.

Anyone volunteering to take care about them?
They are defined in WML, no coding involved.

[iceiceice]

Hi Fabi,

I think the semantic minimap is a very good idea, however I think maybe for the mp lobby / map preview it is better to stick with the satellite view? I guess it is debatable but the satellite view might look nicer to help you advertise your game, the semantic info is helpful once you have your faction and are now thinking about tactics.

~iceiceice~

Edit: Also, I notice some strange behavior in 1.11.7 semantic minimaps in lobby: it looks like the void at the edge of maps is assigned colors inconsistently, the same map giving different colors there each time you load it.

[Crow_T]

Hey Fabi, have you looked into an icon pallette such as this? http://tango.freedesktop.org/Tango_Icon ... Guidelines

I'm not sure of how to even see the new mini map in game, perhaps post 2 versions of the same map, preferably a diverse one, in both modes?

[iceiceice]

@Crow_T:

This is what it looks like:



There are new terrain icons in 1.11.7, such as the brown mountains and house above. These change as you scroll over hexes to show the terrain type. The colors on semantic map are derived from the terrain types using colors like the colors on the icons, instead of from the terrain images as they used to be. I think there's supposed to be an option to toggle in game between semantic and satellite but I actually don't know where it is... it looks like the default is semantic atm.

[Iris]

I think there's supposed to be an option to toggle in game between semantic and satellite but I actually don't know where it is...

It took me a while to find out myself, but it’s the very last option to the right on the minimap toolbar, the one that doesn’t have an icon yet.

[fabi]

Hi Fabi,

I think the semantic minimap is a very good idea, however I think maybe for the mp lobby / map preview it is better to stick with the satellite view? I guess it is debatable but the satellite view might look nicer to help you advertise your game, the semantic info is helpful once you have your faction and are now thinking about tactics.

Hello iceiceice.

I am not sure which one is more helpful, as you wrote it is debatable.
The view changes with the active option.
Meaning if you used the satellite view last in the game before, the mp lobby will display in satellite view.

I could hardcode one of the views to be used in map preview situations all the time or offer buttons to toggle it.
You already can bind keys to the minimap related actions, maybe the hotkeys work already in the lobby.

Edit: Also, I notice some strange behavior in 1.11.7 semantic minimaps in lobby: it looks like the void at the edge of maps is assigned colors inconsistently, the same map giving different colors there each time you load it.

I can't reproduce that.
Maybe it is fixed already?

[Telchin]

Pardon my ignorance, but how is this semantic view going to work with terrains that are made of two base terrain types (e.g. bridges, frozen mountains, water villages)? Other than that I think this idea is good, though I'll probably use the deafult ("satellite") view more often (for aesthetical reasons )

[fabi]

Pardon my ignorance, but how is this semantic view going to work with terrains that are made of two base terrain types (e.g. bridges, frozen mountains, water villages)? Other than that I think this idea is good, though I'll probably use the deafult ("satellite") view more often (for aesthetical reasons )

The colors are mixed.

[Crow_T]

Obviously this could be simplified a great deal, any bridge could be a brown, mountains could be gray, any village could be a purple, etc. Mixed ones could simply reflect the main base type. You wouldn't need to take the actual terrain colors literally, just have set representative colors, even have an easily accessed key to show what is what. Speaking of villages, could they be a different shape, like triangles, that could change color when a team takes them?

Edit, so the main terrain types are flat, hill, mountain, forest, swamp, cave, lava, impassible, village, shallow water, deep water, sand, snow, bridge. 14 colors. Snow could be expanded easily to cover flat, hill, and mountain, as could sand, so 4 more colors. Hilly forest could be a challenge

Here is a quick color scheme:

[iceiceice]

Hey, let me comment: Most maps are mostly hill plains forest and all these are shades of green... it might make the difference hard to see which defeats the purpose of semantic map. So maybe its better to give brown to hills for contrast?

[fabi]

Obviously this could be simplified a great deal, ...

... any bridge could be a brown, ...

Bridges are not recognizable as those from the engine point of view.
A bridge is a flat overlay terrain resulting in a mix mostly between water and flat but
you can also place it over sand for example (the river is dry at the moment).

Why should a bridge get a different color than the "ford" terrain which is technically the same?
Depending on your unit and which terrain a bridge is based on can also make a huge difference.

... mountains could be gray, any village could be a purple, etc.

Mixed ones could simply reflect the main base type.

Which one is the main base type? In case of the "ford" terrain, is it flat or water?
The first iteration of the current coding did only take the first in a list,
I thought the mixing of the colors would be an improvement.

You wouldn't need to take the actual terrain colors literally, just have set representative colors, even have an easily accessed key to show what is what.

Sure, I can't take actual terrain colors literally, because the base terrain types have no actual incarnation.
Flat is the best example of a terrain that can have nearly every color or pattern.
The key is that the new terrain symbol icons use the same wml color definition to paint their background.

Speaking of villages, could they be a different shape, like triangles, that could change color when a team takes them?

That is already part of the development version.
I used rectangles for them, like the units do. Your proposal makes me think about using circles (which are easier to draw).
I guess it will be circles and rectangles but which to use for what?

Edit, so the main terrain types are flat, hill, mountain, forest, swamp, cave, lava, impassible, village, shallow water, deep water, sand, snow, bridge. 14 colors.

Lava is only an alias of unwalkable, bridge has been discussed above.
Fungus, castle, railroad and coastal reef are main terrain types as well.

Snow could be expanded easily to cover flat, hill, and mountain, as could sand, so 4 more colors. Hilly forest could be a challenge

Sorry I don't quite get what you mean.

Here is a quick color scheme:

Thank you for the work you did by composing the scheme.
The question is:
How does it look and work ingame?
I already have a color scheme that looks nice on the paper and when used for the terrain symbol icons.

[Chief_Chasso]

Speaking of villages, could they be a different shape, like triangles, that could change color when a team takes them?

That is already part of the development version.
I used rectangles for them, like the units do. Your proposal makes me think about using circles (which are easier to draw).
I guess it will be circles and rectangles but which to use for what?

Just my two cents- I think circles would be best for villages. Units are already displayed as squares on the minimap. Having rectangle villages might not be enough contrast to distinguish between the two.

[Crow_T]

Well you caught me Fabi, I'm not too studied up on the terrain nuances I generally lead my troops like a madman, they are known to fire arrows into my camp

I added the svg if anyone wants to mess with it in inkscape. select a color patch and ctrl-D to make a duplicate that you can color.

[em3]

Just my two cents- I think circles would be best for villages. Units are already displayed as squares on the minimap. Having rectangle villages might not be enough contrast to distinguish between the two.

On the other hand, a circle could allude to unit's ellipse (which would be circle when viewed from top).

[GunChleoc]

I think circles for units and rectangles or triangles for villages would be best.