Crossfire Archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: World Maps and "meta-truths" (Was: Re: CF: some examples)

> David writes:
> 
> On Sat, 10 May 1997, Brian Thomas wrote:
> > 	I definitely would like to see a better defined scale
> > 	for all maps. This has been an issue discussed in prior
> > 	times, and, for my part, I would prefer that a consistent
> > 	scale be adopted for "inside", "town", and "countryside"
> > 	adventuring (each has different scale). Making archetypes
> > 	to fit the needs of these different scales is an important
> > 	part of preserving consistency. 
> 
> Agreed. It is already mostly done, altho I want to add some more archs 
> for countryside buildings. 
>

	Countryside buildings should be similar in scale to the
	buildings in the "city" archs (stylistic opinion).
  
> > 	If we want to make the whole world (in maps) then, I think,
> > 	we are talking about adding another "continental" scale,
> > 	and some archetypes should again be developed (eg 
> > 	"mountain_chain", etc). 
> 
> Dont you think that the countryside scale could contain that? Part of the 
> idea is the old 'travel is an adventure' proposition. A continental scale 
> could be usable in some cases tho.
>  

	Well I was trying to avoid the issue of travel times. Basically,
	I wouldnt prefer to see country-side maps and "world/continental"
	maps share lots of archs. Reasons?

	1) they appear the same. Each scale should have a definite
	   "feel" (but that doesnt preclude the shared use of some
	   archs, but we do need to have some destinctive ones that
    	   only appear on each scale).

	2) By having the same archs, you are forced to make continental
	   maps HUGE to distinguish them. This isnt a desireable result
	   from many standpoints, the main ones being resource use and 
	   playability.
	
> > 	One problem I have with making "world" maps is that once
> > 	they are made, then we have (potentially) shut out all new
> > 	continental development.
> 
> Actually, solving that problem was one of the ideas behind the maputils

	Question: does your utility maintain all of the exits to/from
	the map? otherwise, map expand/decrease is still a pain (although
	it is easier). Exit consitency/map checking should be an option
	on your script (just my 2 cents, I could provide some code for
	this if you like).
  

							-b.t.

> 

[to unsubscribe etc., send mail to crossfire-request@ifi.uio.no]