Remaking the Maps

[GoldPanda]

I'm responding to this thread:
http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,2109.0.html

I do have the AoW2 Editor, and gave it a try. Remaking the current maps while maintaining the same topography will be rather difficult and time consuming. However, I believe it will be possible, if we accept that it won't look the same pixel-for-pixel like the old maps. Some of the cities might have to look drastically different, for example. Then again, maybe different can mean better rather than worse.

So I'll be spending an hour or two every weekend on this. I'll try to make progress reports here, but please do not expect anything vaguely resembling a schedule. It will get done when it gets done. :p

[Tom]

Could you do a test first, please? Take some part of some island, whatever, and re-make it. Then let us compare.

It may - I'm not sure - be better to not remake it 1:1 but scale things up a bit. With the new dynamic map, size isn't an issue anymore. It would be worthwhile checking out a few alternative ways of doing it before committing to the full thing.

[Lefanis]

I'm responding to this thread:
http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,2109.0.html

I do have the AoW2 Editor, and gave it a try. Remaking the current maps while maintaining the same topography will be rather difficult and time consuming. However, I believe it will be possible, if we accept that it won't look the same pixel-for-pixel like the old maps. Some of the cities might have to look drastically different, for example. Then again, maybe different can mean better rather than worse.

So I'll be spending an hour or two every weekend on this. I'll try to make progress reports here, but please do not expect anything vaguely resembling a schedule. It will get done when it gets done. :p

Which island are you doing? I could lend a hand, I've some free time on my hands.

[Arrakis]

If an effort is about to be made into making better maps, perhaps we should consider naming certain geographic features and make the names displayed on the maps. Such as rivers, mountain ranges, seas, and stuff like that. It would add to the roleplaying flavor in my opinion.

[Zakilevo]

It is going to be a hell of a job. The size of rivers and mountains will be different. Also small things like trees and buildings as well.

[Chenier]

If an effort is about to be made into making better maps, perhaps we should consider naming certain geographic features and make the names displayed on the maps. Such as rivers, mountain ranges, seas, and stuff like that. It would add to the roleplaying flavor in my opinion.

I like them not being on the maps. People came up with stuff by themselves on Dwilight, and it caught on. I think I started with BT, but that wasn't quite the same thing.

[Arrakis]

It caught up...sort of. Rarely I've seen people mention custom made names on dwilight. I'd say about 10% uses them. Having the names turn up on the map would mean everyone would consider them IC knowledge and would use them in everyday conversation. Which would, for me personally, definitely add to the atmosphere.

[Chenier]

It caught up...sort of. Rarely I've seen people mention custom made names on dwilight. I'd say about 10% uses them. Having the names turn up on the map would mean everyone would consider them IC knowledge and would use them in everyday conversation. Which would, for me personally, definitely add to the atmosphere.

I hear them used *all* of the time. That is, the major geographic divisions, at least. River names? No, I don't, but when do I *ever* hear *anyone* talk about the rivers? Never. No point in mentioning something's name if you aren't gonna even talk about it.

All the regions and continents are already named. I like that there's still a few things left for player-based toponymy.

[Arrakis]

I hear them used *all* of the time. That is, the major geographic divisions, at least.

D'hara must be quite different then. I've played through pretty much all of SA and few times in Luria. That is quite a large player base. I don't remember hearing any custom made topography names in SA, and in Luria only one player was mentioning them. The only other discussions your character might have are various guilds and rulers chit chats. Both of those are the minority I'd say, so maybe not the greatest frame to make an objective conclusion.

The problem is that the major source of the player invented topography is the Wiki, a source which few people actually read. I just think that if the main source was the game itself that they would be more acknowledged and much more used.

[Chenier]

D'hara must be quite different then. I've played through pretty much all of SA and few times in Luria. That is quite a large player base. I don't remember hearing any custom made topography names in SA, and in Luria only one player was mentioning them. The only other discussions your character might have are various guilds and rulers chit chats. Both of those are the minority I'd say, so maybe not the greatest frame to make an objective conclusion.

The problem is that the major source of the player invented topography is the Wiki, a source which few people actually read. I just think that if the main source was the game itself that they would be more acknowledged and much more used.

People in the Marroccidens use them. Bowie, who speaks on many multi-realm channel, uses them often as well.

Indeed, I would be surprised if others use the as must as the (South-)West does.

I like that the game doesn't tell us how to name the rivers and subregions of the continents, because it allows us to define them ourselves. That such names are shown or not on in-game maps doesn't matter to me, the only thing that would is if the game (devs) decide what these names are. I'm sure sure if you understand the nuance I'm trying to make here, though... For example, if the banker could set realm-wide markers for the dynamic map, so that all nobles of that realm can then check on the "toponymy" box on and then see all of the river and regional names the banker set, then that's cool to me, because the banker (a player) would be the one to set it and not Devs, allowing for different people (realms) to name different features differently. For example, I could easily see some chokepoints being named as "The Pass of Glory" by some while being the "Pass of the Dead" by others, or some's "River of Fortune" being others' "River of Blood", etc. I don't mind such toponymy being displayed via in-game means, as long as there's no unified imposed toponymy. The essentials (continents, realms, regions) are already uniform (which is good), but I see no reason for the rest to have to be, given how trivial they are.

[Indirik]

I would use names for geographical features more often if they were available in-game. But it's too difficult to keep checking the wiki to look something up, then have to explain to other people what I'm talking about.

But I personally don't like the idea of different realms having  different names shown on the map for things. Local flavor, maybe. But also a big pain in the ass for players. Poor for game play, I think.

[Perth]

Player-made Geographic names are used quite a bit in the Maroccidens, I think. Heck, "Maroccidens" is one of the best examples of that.

Other examples include the Marwood, the Phantarian forest (known in Terran, at least), the Root River, and the Inner Sea.

Actually, Terran just renamed all three of its duchies to reflect the names they were more geographically associated with.

I much prefer player generated content, I just think there should be more of an effort to do so and use the names created. Even on Dwilight, but especially on the other continents.

[fodder]

it doesn't get used because you don't see it on the map or anywhere else consistently enough. looking up wiki is a bit of a chore. the other thing is.. 1 person will call it something and someone else call it something else. (or people might not like coming up with names.. or don't want to bother if it just doesn't get used, etc)

i wouldn't mind naming my estates in avengmil according to the name of the seas on either side... for example. don't know what they are called though... so just made up 2 names...

[Arrakis]

It is far more easier and consistent to have the game generate the names. I don't see many negatives about that, but see a bunch of positive things.

[Perth]

it doesn't get used because you don't see it on the map or anywhere else consistently enough. looking up wiki is a bit of a chore. the other thing is.. 1 person will call it something and someone else call it something else. (or people might not like coming up with names.. or don't want to bother if it just doesn't get used, etc)

Well, yeah, that's what I said I just wished people would make a better effort. *shrug*


However, I do agree that if the project to redo and update the maps is going to be undertaken then it perhaps would be a good idea to go through and look at all of the things we WISH our current maps had or that we have felt they were lacking, or any changes that we thought should be made, and be sure to correct those things on the new versions.