May Challenge Voting

[NeonKnight]

Neon- Compression is voodoo. Seriously. Getting detail without noise is a real black art, and depends a lot on the software used. Look at the difference the gold standard (photoshop) even has between its "save as jpeg" and "save for web" results! You'd think the two would be the same, but they are not.

-Rob A>

Yeah, I know. Like I said, I make an almost monochrome plain jane map and I am pushing the upper limit. Meanwhile I look at other's maps and it's like I am building a boat with a single tree and all I can accomplish is the log, while they have a 40 footer with party deck

Maybe a fair comprimise for a future challenge of this sort is everyne must use the same readily available software (like MS PAint or GIMP) so everyone is more or less equal. Don't know.

[The Hound]

Is the prize giving based on our results then? I would've thought RPGTonight would have their own judges marking against the criteria laid out. This was my understanding from the original post. I thought the board was voting for the coveted compass rose award.

Just to clarify this, our intention has always been to let Cartographer's Guild run the challenge they way they always do, and go with the results of the voting here. Our goal was to promote awareness of the increasing use of maps for online play via VTs, and the constraints imposed on maps by such use. Cartographer's Guild seemed by far the best place to do that, so we decided to sponsor a contest here instead of running one on our site this month. From the response and the impressive amount of help, advice, and suggestions that members have been giving each other, it seems that we have succeeded.

[Istarlome]

so many really nice entries. i went with dorpond. i think it's not only very well done but unique as well.

great jobs by all....

[dorpond]

so many really nice entries. i went with dorpond. i think it's not only very well done but unique as well.

great jobs by all....

Thank you Istarlome.

[dorpond]

After loading up every map in Maptool to give them a VT test run, I am really surprised that MeleeGuy didn't get any votes yet. His map lined up perfectly to grid and is a great generic map that can be used in any setting.

Let it be known MeleeGuy, your map will have a lot of longevity and is extremely useful - I will definately use it. Hmmm.. I wonder if we should make some rooftops for it?

[dormouse]

My voting is based on my view of the usefulness of the map as a battlemap in VTT play. Since I mostly use maps as battlemaps in a VTT, I have clear ideas about what works and what does not.

Also, pre-prepared battlemaps ideally present options and challenges to the party and opponents in play. I was looking for complexity and interest here, though sometimes a simple challenge, like a thin passage, can be really challenging to party tactics.

Layers are critical to map design for this use.

What needs to be on the map are all the features that will remain unchanged in use. This may include more than one layer. In a wood, normal height people will be under the canopy and so that is what needs to be seen. They will need to know where the branches are though, to be alert to the possibility of something/one being above them. I require maps that avoid the impression of players walking on tops of trees etc. (I generally attempt this by having the playable level solid and the canopy very transparent; on a diagram map it could be done by using different types of line, solid, dotted etc.)

I expected maps to be devoid of desirable and easily moved items, since someone is likely to pocket them. They will be added in the VTT. An extra map with them (or without them if objects provided separately) would have been good. Other movable items (small items, or even large items of furniture) may be moved by the party (or others) but are more likely to be left alone. Depending on the VTT, these may may or may not be most easily added in the VTT rather than on the original map.

I expected options for doors and openable windows. A base map without them. Plus the images for the doors and windows. Plus a map with them in the state the party will first encounter.

Light and Shade will depend on circumstances and are definitely best added in the VTT.

I appreciated that the map design will still have these items and would really prefer entries with a view of the playable base map and a total view with all the other bits added (to see how the map would look when the party first entered).

I don't agree with Dorpond about the need to avoid swapping in other maps or Midgardsormr's fixation on compression ratios (or even the sponsor's premise of a need for a small map size limit). The importance of all these issues is dependent on the VTT being used and the equipment and bandwidth available. I therefore regard these as lesser points.

On going through the entries, it seemed that most people put nearly all their effort into meeting the limits of map size with relatively little appreciation of the needs of a battlemap or in VTT use. Even Dorpond got sucked into producing a map with stuff on it that he would normally leave to be added in MapTool. I was disappointed that so few entries did not mention the scale they were using; this is essential for setting the size of figures on the map and any grid being used.

Here are my views (for whatever they are worth): - (with * meeting most of my criteria for usability)

Ravells - I couldn't imagine using it as a battlemap.
Gamerprinter - entry discounted because players would appear to to on top of the tree canopy.
Sigurd - playable as battlemap, but not really designed for VTT use.
*rlucci - design is playable and would work in VTT. Very indistinct though and would look a bit odd if I used it with normal player figures/tokens which would be in much greater detail.
*delgondahntelius - mostly playable as battlemap - problem with tree canopy, but it is only a slight problem because of the size and position of the trees. Varying level of detail between objects on map.
Torq - as he admitted, it isn't really playable with the bats. And is the area under the roof(s) accessible; if so it should have been visible.
*Malakor - simple but playable. The contrast in resolution between the objects and the ground rather gave the impression that the objects and bridge were floating above it though.
keithcurtis - not really playable as a battlemap because of the trees.
*Midgardsormr - playable, quite large, actually gave the map scale, gave objects separately. From my point of view almost completely met the brief; though I would have preferred to be able to switch doors from open to closed. I could use it myself, though I would have to redesign player tokens since I usually use a photrealistic style.
*meleeguy - playable like midgardsormr's, but no scale or objects given, and still with the door open/closed issue. Would still need a lot of work to use it since it would have to be provided with furnishing.
terrainmonkey - can't see it being usable as battlemap with all traps, secret doors etc being marked.
*NeonKnight - meets criteria. No canopy problem. All the grey buildings/crypts would need to have their own maps - but no problem with that.
GM's Apprentice - design would work, but I found the resolution too poor to be usable.
*Redrobes - mostly usable and meeting brief, though there are some easily moved objects (cloak, stuff on altar etc) that probably would not stay fixed for long in use; can't quite decide if that is enough to stop it being a *. Pretty map for the limitations, though some resolution contrast between the altar and its plinth/steps.
mathuwm - I made it 76kb.
*Valarian - has the door problem but otherwise playable.
*SpamValiant - meets criteria. Floor slabs seemed a bit large.
*rpgmapmaker - meets criteria, though I found it a bit blurred.
Cisticola - extremely pretty map within the limits, but not playable as a battlemap - major tree/roof canopy problem.
*alucard339 - very pretty map. Entirely playable. Slight canopy issue through entrance etc - but pretty obvious what is there; I assume the walls are solid and that there is no guard hole present. Only comment would be that bridge into castle seems as if it was rather higher than the path it went on too. Internal buildings would need separate maps.
*torstan - another pretty map. Mostly playable, but a bit of a canopy issue with the mast/sails; I will assume that the sail etc is on the floor so that it is all OK over the ship, but could be any number of people over the sea.
*RobA - again entirely playable. Easy to shift floors in the VTT; having the 5 floors makes it one of the most usable maps; though still a lot of work (possibly) to furnish it. Door issue remains, but this seems to be the case for all the maps.
Dorpond - Nice & mostly playable map - but it seems to me that the huts represent a real canopy issue. They seem too small to be accompanied by separate maps, but there will certainly be stuff (of some sort) in them. Variety of levels available adds to gameplay.
aegean - playable, but play area seems limited and mostly connecting other areas that are not on map.
*Vry - gives all the info needed to furnish and tweak the map. Darkness does make it harder to use since even adding light in the VTT does not make it easier to see the details. But otherwise a very usable map with a huge playable area.

So which of these might I use in real life? I tried them all out in my VTT (BRPG). None of those where there are a lot of doors and they are already present. That knocks out some otherwise very usable maps like RobA's. I am still looking for some complexity and saving myself a lot of time in having to do it myself. Vry's has that but contains too little detail really; I tweaked it by adding contrast etc, but, while it became more playable, it still did not really have enough detail and the size increased over 75k (I did not try bringing the size back down again). With delgondahntelius' map, the detail on the floors was very intrusive except at very low zoom levels (though, tbh, low zoom levels worked fine for this map). Ditto for all the others - reflecting that I usually use maps with higher levels of detail in the scale.

So my finalists are alucard339, Redrobes, NeonKnight, delgondahntelius. Of these Redrobes, offers possibly the least complex gameplay; alucard339 the most (within a clearly boundaried space) and NeonKnight a lot of potential for a free for all and vast number of possible stories. Both require work for the unseen buildings, and I (just) go for alucard339 for the range of combat options it gives the party.

And interesting to see how few votes my own finalists have.

[Badger]

My voting is based on my view of the usefulness of the map as a battlemap in VTT play. Since I mostly use maps as battlemaps in a VTT, I have clear ideas about what works and what does not.

edited for length...

Unfortunately I wasn't able to post the map without any of the trees, I decided to rid the trees because I couldn't get them fixed the way I wanted and the canopy/layers issue ... I would have posted several layers including the individual graphics for doors, trees, and other layer oriented objects ... but I really wasn't sure it would be considered 'legal' according the original rules for the maps... Then there was the issue of my babygirl having a litter of puppies that has kept me busy back and forth to the vet and very little sleep the last week and half of the contest... (pictures on my album )) but that is neither here nor there...

Dormouse, I appreciate all the points you made for VTT in general.... and my next project involves a vtt set of graphics and icons along with the module I'm publishing ... (This idea came to me when the Challenge was presented, Gameprinter of course had this idea long before me ... and posted such ... but he only encouraged me to go ahead with his posts as there seemed to be a ?demand for this as the popularity of the format is ever increasing) .... hope I didn't come off too much like a hack... lol

So I'll probably be spending a bit of time on RPtools forum asking questions.. i've been lurking there for the last month or so... trying to assimilate information on VTT's in general... I also own ViewingDale and will be making use of that as well... both platforms are still new to me so I imagine it will be slow going at first...

Dormouse.. thank you for the critique on my map, and the advice

[dormouse]

So I'll probably be spending a bit of time on RPtools forum asking questions.. i've been lurking there for the last month or so... trying to assimilate information on VTT's in general... I also own ViewingDale and will be making use of that as well... both platforms are still new to me so I imagine it will be slow going at first...

I'd have to say that moving to a VTT came as a real shock to me in terms of map design. I thought it wouldn't be very different, but it was. I know better now, and have ways of trying to make things work, but I'm sure I still have a lot of learning to do.

As you say, you need to keep all the images with the map separately so they can be applied in the VTT, and you do need to be aware of resources and bandwidth and zoom ratios etc. It might have been helpful if it had been said that there should be a base map, a collection of all the images to be put on, and an entry that would combine them into the map as the party would first encounter it, as that is what is really needed for most VTTs.

This contest was (for me) very limited by the 75k limit and the recommended resolution, which is much more limited than I prefer. But the detail in some of the maps (including yours) was amazing given those limitations and certainly showed me that I need to understand png and jpg compression algorithms better than I do.

It seems to me that Dundjinni revolutionised people's ideas of what could be done with photorealistic maps, but that the emphasis within the community tended towards attractiveness rather than usability. I think that emphasis still exists, but that the rise of VTTs will lead a swing back to usability. I just hope it does not lead to excess minimalism and lack of resolution.

[Badger]

I actually have all the individual items saved seperately ... in case there would be a need to use them in the future. I did keep that in mind as I made it...

I learned alot about compression and the difference between raster and vector as a mapping tool... my first map.. the one that I messed up on in the wip... was done in photoshop .. the second larger and correct size file was done in illustrator... and with vectors I found I could put out more and get less... so to speak... I'm sure there is much more to it than I really know... but it was a learning experience all around...

I really don't see a trend towards lack of resolution and excessive minimalism ... I understand that users are still on dialup ... I was until about ... 5 months ago... and I all too well understand the frustration that goes with dialup .... but as a dialup user... I just didn't participate in things that I knew were going to either A> frustrate me till the point of throwing the keyboard threw the monitor. Or B> causing others in a game to lag, slow down and otherwise interrupt their game experience. ... I'm not saying everyone with dialup should just accept this attitude (it sure saved me headaches tho) but it just pays to know your limitations and to work around them... hence a minimilist map... but, I don't forsee this being a mainstream kinda thing...

[RobA]

I can repost my tower map without doors, and at a higher resolution, with each level as a separate image (if anyone wants). The original is 128 px per 5 feet...what is best for VTT?

-Rob A>