|
On April 12 2014 09:47 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2014 09:29 NewSunshine wrote: You're not getting how it works. The minute details, such as the angle of the terrain in a specific place, all adds up to change how the map looks from a distance. The largest impact such a change can have on gameplay is affecting whether it's a bunker or cannon spot, and obviously I won't just throw those in there, I'll make other considerations. Otherwise the effect is negligible, and gives you the room to style your map in a different way to just textures and doodads. I'm referring to individual units of terrain length, the smallest possible adjustment you can make, but composed properly, over the whole map, gives it a totally different look. Nothing I said has been contradictory, you just misunderstand, and perhaps I could illustrate the point better. All this argument so far has been ridiculous though. Got it. I have to say, though, that the OP would have made for a lot more interesting discussion, and was actually worthy of a discussion thread. Not sure why you decided to abandon it; what's there to discuss about terrain edging? It and the OP are one and the same. It is responsible for maps leading your eyes from one area to another fluidly, and the ability to put it together in such a way that it creates that effect is what the discussion should entail, I would think. The way you refer to it is downplaying the power it has, though, merely labeling it terrain edging and moving on misses out on what you can really do with it.
|
On April 12 2014 10:27 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2014 09:47 iamcaustic wrote:On April 12 2014 09:29 NewSunshine wrote: You're not getting how it works. The minute details, such as the angle of the terrain in a specific place, all adds up to change how the map looks from a distance. The largest impact such a change can have on gameplay is affecting whether it's a bunker or cannon spot, and obviously I won't just throw those in there, I'll make other considerations. Otherwise the effect is negligible, and gives you the room to style your map in a different way to just textures and doodads. I'm referring to individual units of terrain length, the smallest possible adjustment you can make, but composed properly, over the whole map, gives it a totally different look. Nothing I said has been contradictory, you just misunderstand, and perhaps I could illustrate the point better. All this argument so far has been ridiculous though. Got it. I have to say, though, that the OP would have made for a lot more interesting discussion, and was actually worthy of a discussion thread. Not sure why you decided to abandon it; what's there to discuss about terrain edging? It and the OP are one and the same. It is responsible for maps leading your eyes from one area to another fluidly, and the ability to put it together in such a way that it creates that effect is what the discussion should entail, I would think. The way you refer to it is downplaying the power it has, though, merely labeling it terrain edging and moving on misses out on what you can really do with it. I'd love for an explanation on how it's the terrain edges, and not the structure of the map, that create those wonderful eye movements you were emphasizing in the OP. Whirlwind especially.
|
On April 12 2014 10:35 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2014 10:27 NewSunshine wrote:On April 12 2014 09:47 iamcaustic wrote:On April 12 2014 09:29 NewSunshine wrote: You're not getting how it works. The minute details, such as the angle of the terrain in a specific place, all adds up to change how the map looks from a distance. The largest impact such a change can have on gameplay is affecting whether it's a bunker or cannon spot, and obviously I won't just throw those in there, I'll make other considerations. Otherwise the effect is negligible, and gives you the room to style your map in a different way to just textures and doodads. I'm referring to individual units of terrain length, the smallest possible adjustment you can make, but composed properly, over the whole map, gives it a totally different look. Nothing I said has been contradictory, you just misunderstand, and perhaps I could illustrate the point better. All this argument so far has been ridiculous though. Got it. I have to say, though, that the OP would have made for a lot more interesting discussion, and was actually worthy of a discussion thread. Not sure why you decided to abandon it; what's there to discuss about terrain edging? It and the OP are one and the same. It is responsible for maps leading your eyes from one area to another fluidly, and the ability to put it together in such a way that it creates that effect is what the discussion should entail, I would think. The way you refer to it is downplaying the power it has, though, merely labeling it terrain edging and moving on misses out on what you can really do with it. I'd love for an explanation on how it's the terrain edges, and not the structure of the map, that create those wonderful eye movements you were emphasizing in the OP. Whirlwind especially. It's a combination of both. Let's see, so there's a basic path your eye will take through the map. You usually start at the main base and work your way out through the rest of the map, along basic paths, dictated by the general shape of the terrain, from one base or feature to the next. All maps have this. What I'm illustrating is that the edges of the terrain play an important role in highlighting this movement. Think of the edges as a railing that encloses the basic paths your eyes take. When there's an edge that follows along with the natural direction of the terrain, it facilitates the whole's aesthetics, making your eyes more naturally move a certain way over the map. If the edges of the terrain are discordant with each other and the basic path of the terrain, it slows the eye's movement, because you're busy reading a less consistent terrain design. It feels less natural, the flow has been disrupted by a design that doesn't facilitate it. Going back to the lines you put in your own map, those lines are mostly valid, but the design of the edging in your map doesn't take my eye and guide it along, if anything it takes away from it. When you look at Whirlwind, the lines going through the map are just as valid as they are on yours, but the construction, down to the last detail, moves you along a conveyor belt almost, you look at the natural and before you know it you've spun around to the middle. That's in effect what I'm trying to explain, hope this makes sense.
|
On April 12 2014 11:22 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2014 10:35 iamcaustic wrote:On April 12 2014 10:27 NewSunshine wrote:On April 12 2014 09:47 iamcaustic wrote:On April 12 2014 09:29 NewSunshine wrote: You're not getting how it works. The minute details, such as the angle of the terrain in a specific place, all adds up to change how the map looks from a distance. The largest impact such a change can have on gameplay is affecting whether it's a bunker or cannon spot, and obviously I won't just throw those in there, I'll make other considerations. Otherwise the effect is negligible, and gives you the room to style your map in a different way to just textures and doodads. I'm referring to individual units of terrain length, the smallest possible adjustment you can make, but composed properly, over the whole map, gives it a totally different look. Nothing I said has been contradictory, you just misunderstand, and perhaps I could illustrate the point better. All this argument so far has been ridiculous though. Got it. I have to say, though, that the OP would have made for a lot more interesting discussion, and was actually worthy of a discussion thread. Not sure why you decided to abandon it; what's there to discuss about terrain edging? It and the OP are one and the same. It is responsible for maps leading your eyes from one area to another fluidly, and the ability to put it together in such a way that it creates that effect is what the discussion should entail, I would think. The way you refer to it is downplaying the power it has, though, merely labeling it terrain edging and moving on misses out on what you can really do with it. I'd love for an explanation on how it's the terrain edges, and not the structure of the map, that create those wonderful eye movements you were emphasizing in the OP. Whirlwind especially. It's a combination of both. Let's see, so there's a basic path your eye will take through the map. You usually start at the main base and work your way out through the rest of the map, along basic paths, dictated by the general shape of the terrain, from one base or feature to the next. All maps have this. What I'm illustrating is that the edges of the terrain play an important role in highlighting this movement. Think of the edges as a railing that encloses the basic paths your eyes take. When there's an edge that follows along with the natural direction of the terrain, it facilitates the whole's aesthetics, making your eyes more naturally move a certain way over the map. If the edges of the terrain are discordant with each other and the basic path of the terrain, it slows the eye's movement, because you're busy reading a less consistent terrain design. It feels less natural, the flow has been disrupted by a design that doesn't facilitate it. Going back to the lines you put in your own map, those lines are mostly valid, but the design of the edging in your map doesn't take my eye and guide it along, if anything it takes away from it. When you look at Whirlwind, the lines going through the map are just as valid as they are on yours, but the construction, down to the last detail, moves you along a conveyor belt almost, you look at the natural and before you know it you've spun around to the middle. That's in effect what I'm trying to explain, hope this makes sense. That's texturing at play, IMO. Khalani Sanctuary looks nice up close, but I did it before I really started working on my map texturing in the context of the greater picture. The end result is a visual aesthetic that doesn't help pronounce the terrain flow. I think a good counter-example to this on my part would be Sol Crossing. I've taken to improving my map texturing to help define the terrain structure and flow.
I think your choice of Overgrowth is a perfect example for me to make this case; the low grounds don't even have terrain edges to dictate that flow you drew. It's all sleight of hand using textures, doodads, and pathing paint. That said, I do agree that good aesthetics will help guide the eye. I just think you're misunderstanding what's actually doing the work.
|
|
Lets all just keep this friendly
|
On April 12 2014 08:17 ScorpSCII wrote: I feel that attack was unnecessary. Wasn't an attack, just a demonstration that NewSunshine's OP can be (and has been) misunderstood. In your first post here it seems clear that you're not talking about purely visual flow, or at least not in the same sense as NewSunshine. Basically, NewSunshine's OP is so vague (or arbitrary) that most people can interpret it along the lines of their own opinions on macro-aesthetics (which everyone has) and think they're actually talking about the same thing.
On April 12 2014 15:01 iamcaustic wrote: It's all sleight of hand using textures, doodads, and pathing paint. That said, I do agree that good aesthetics will help guide the eye. I just think you're misunderstanding what's actually doing the work. This (and pretty much everything else Caustic said in this thread).
|
Man those Korean maps sure look good, now that I look at them again!
Korhal Sky Island and Planet S look really good o.o
And yeah, a lot of Korean mappers I know are really into the "flow" of the map to make sure the map geometry is very good. This really makes the maps "stable" without awkward points as well, I feel. But some maps really have to squeeze out all the space for the layout and rush distances to work, which is why their geometry may not be as appealing. But for standard maps, such as EW's, a nice flow to the map is a good thing
EDIT: btw, EW drew these EXACT lines to demonstrate how these lines of flow are really important to maps. Coincidence?!
|
On April 12 2014 15:01 iamcaustic wrote: I think your choice of Overgrowth is a perfect example for me to make this case; the low grounds don't even have terrain edges to dictate that flow you drew. It's all sleight of hand using textures, doodads, and pathing paint. That said, I do agree that good aesthetics will help guide the eye. I just think you're misunderstanding what's actually doing the work. I'm not misunderstanding anything. By saying it's all down to textures you're ignoring the effects of basic geometry, and I hope you're not about to say that that's the case. In the case of Overgrowth, it's an exception insofar as it establishes a terrain geometry without using cliffs. Cliffs just happen to be the most common method by a wide margin, but a clear boundary created by doodads can have the same effect, the geometry on that map is as real as on any other - if you don't believe me on this one, Korhal Sky Island does the same thing in many places. I also thought I dispelled the notion that textures create the effect when I provided a textureless example, which you dismissed only on the basis of gameplay elements. And how, in the case of Whirlwind, do the textures create that effect and not the geometry? You're starting to lose me here. I agree with the idea that textures play a role in how you read a map, because textures could theoretically be applied in a way that misleads your eye, based on how we're accustomed to seeing textures used on a map. But don't get the wrong idea, textures are no substitute for the aesthetics of a map's geometry, you are incorrect on that assertion. Most all maps use textures to highlight pathing in a very basic way, it's nothing special, what I'm illustrating is altogether different. I think your newest map is a good enough example of what you're talking about, but it has nothing to do with what I've been trying to explain.
On April 12 2014 18:29 Semmo wrote:Man those Korean maps sure look good, now that I look at them again! Korhal Sky Island and Planet S look really good o.o And yeah, a lot of Korean mappers I know are really into the "flow" of the map to make sure the map geometry is very good. This really makes the maps "stable" without awkward points as well, I feel. But some maps really have to squeeze out all the space for the layout and rush distances to work, which is why their geometry may not be as appealing. But for standard maps, such as EW's, a nice flow to the map is a good thing EDIT: btw, EW drew these EXACT lines to demonstrate how these lines of flow are really important to maps. Coincidence?! I understand exactly what you're talking about, especially when you talk about proportions forcing this quality out of a map on occasion, Frost is a great example of that. Koreans have been the ones imbuing their maps with this quality the majority of the time, foreign exceptions being possibly a couple maps by etcetra, myself, and maybe others I'm forgetting, but they've been the ones who held the greatest mastery of the technique.
|
Sunshine, I think you need to be more reductionist in order to have this discussion effectively because you've been 75% talking past each other back and forth for a page.
What are the cliffs and holes (as you put it, purely terrain) showing up as in an overview picture, where what you call flow can be apprehended if it is manifest? Differences in pixel color.
What do doodads and textures show up as in an overview picture? Differences in pixel color.
Obviously all of the above can contribute to guiding the eye around.
When your eye is wondering around an image and your various mental compartments are assimilating the meaning of it on a deeper analytic and intuitive level, clearly you are not basing your inner model on a pixel perfect assessment. There are various things at play at different scales informing your understanding, which will vary between individuals and involve a lot of overlap between details that we as mapmakers know as the true guts (pathable areas) and the visuals.
Cliffs are generally a faithful indicator of pathable areas, and they are usually visually distinct, although this is certainly aided by other cosmetic features. So it is sensible to concentrate on them. But any visual communication of pathability on a map is having the very same contribution to flow. Cliffs just happen to be a pre-coupled (and the most common) version of this. If you wanted you could make a map entirely out of painted no-path, and then make it sensible with textures and doodads only. Grok?
I would also point out that a lot of people just have different visual comprehension traits and abilities based on their natural faculties and experiences, so what you see in the terrain structure of an overview picture will most times be a lot deeper than the average starcraft player, let alone a layman who's never seen the game. Even your ability just to discern the cliffs separates you.
|
On April 13 2014 06:44 EatThePath wrote: I would also point out that a lot of people just have different visual comprehension traits and abilities based on their natural faculties and experiences, so what you see in the terrain structure of an overview picture will most times be a lot deeper than the average starcraft player, let alone a layman who's never seen the game. Even your ability just to discern the cliffs separates you. I agree with your points, but this last part is most noteworthy to me. What I aimed to do with this post was eliminate this separation, by showing everyone exactly what it is I was seeing, by showing examples and explaining it in words, when even I had a hard time identifying what it was for a long time. I see now I probably should not have taken this topic as lightly as I have, and a more comprehensive breakdown would have been desirable, that I admit. Hopefully I can still demonstrate what I'm attempting to here, but it won't be as clean as it could have been. Sorry guys.
|
On April 13 2014 06:04 NewSunshine wrote: I'm not misunderstanding anything. By saying it's all down to textures you're ignoring the effects of basic geometry, and I hope you're not about to say that that's the case. That second sentence screams, to me, that you are misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm referring to the overall aesthetic -- a combination of terrain edges, texturing, and doodad work -- that helps to guide the eye around the map. That's not the same as saying "it's all down to textures", but rather pointing out that, for Overgrowth especially, you're marginalizing texturing and doodads to emphasize how much more important cliff edges are (they're not).
I'll admit it took me a while to finally figure out exactly what aesthetic concept you were trying to highlight, because the OP was all over the place and literally outed doodads and texturing as being irrelevant to the topic (they're quite relevant). You were all on the terrain train, so I thought you were discussing overall terrain structure and flow.
I (again) definitely agree with the discussion about how map aesthetics can help to guide the eye across and create a pleasing look; my comparing of Khalani Sanctuary and Sol Crossing was a demonstration of my own attempts to apply the concept in my more recent works. I think your OP is extremely confusing and misses the mark on properly describing what you're trying to discuss, as well as fails to properly identify how the Koreans go about doing it.
I also think your textureless example fails to perform as well as you think it does. It's definitely hampered by its core design and doesn't have the other aesthetic tools to compensate for it.
On April 13 2014 06:04 NewSunshine wrote: I agree with the idea that textures play a role in how you read a map, because textures could theoretically be applied in a way that misleads your eye, based on how we're accustomed to seeing textures used on a map. But don't get the wrong idea, textures are no substitute for the aesthetics of a map's geometry, you are incorrect on that assertion. You had just finished about how Overgrowth establishes terrain geometry without actually modifying terrain, and then you say this. This is the kind of confusion I'm talking about regarding the OP and your own understanding of the topic. I really don't think we disagree with the result, but rather your insistence that terrain is more heavily weighted over the other aesthetic options when it comes to achieving the result. It's like (actually, quite literally) arguing sculpting is superior to painting for establishing design principles. Wanted to throw the link in there to point out that I mean something quite specific when I say design principles.
Ah man, this conversation is reminding me of my college days in my art and design class.
|
I also practiced graphic design, for 5 years starting in high school, and took it up as a pastime, just like mapmaking is for me now. In my practice flow was the main element I focused on, and that experience is showing up for my maps now, so I feel I know what I'm talking about. You were correct in thinking I'm talking strictly about terrain. You are incorrect in thinking I'm saying it's more important than the other elements, it's not. However, the technique I'm talking about deals almost strictly with the geometry of the map's terrain. The effect I'm talking about is something you can't get from other types of aesthetics, something textures and doodads can only accentuate or detract from. You refer to your own maps in terms of the overall concept of eye movement, and perhaps you focused too much on that particular phrase, and again I could have been more clear, but I'm not addressing every aspect of a map's aesthetics, merely one that few seem to understand and appreciate. You reference sculpting versus painting, and it's a perfect analogy, only I'm not arguing that sculpting is superior, simply that it is an alternative/additional technique for establishing an aesthetic in a 3d space. Nothing I've said is inconsistent, but to see that requires an understanding of what I'm trying to explain.
edit: and I will attempt a revision of the OP soon, that's more explicit in the ideas I'm trying to convey, and the boundaries placed on it, as in what it does/does not do, and what does and does not contribute to it. I should probably work on TLMC maps first however.
|
On April 13 2014 06:55 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2014 06:44 EatThePath wrote: I would also point out that a lot of people just have different visual comprehension traits and abilities based on their natural faculties and experiences, so what you see in the terrain structure of an overview picture will most times be a lot deeper than the average starcraft player, let alone a layman who's never seen the game. Even your ability just to discern the cliffs separates you. I agree with your points, but this last part is most noteworthy to me. What I aimed to do with this post was eliminate this separation, by showing everyone exactly what it is I was seeing, by showing examples and explaining it in words, when even I had a hard time identifying what it was for a long time. I see now I probably should not have taken this topic as lightly as I have, and a more comprehensive breakdown would have been desirable, that I admit. Hopefully I can still demonstrate what I'm attempting to here, but it won't be as clean as it could have been. Sorry guys. No worries man! We express ourselves in order to learn and teach, and I think that's happened here. ;D
+ Show Spoiler +caustic notwithstanding.
|
@NewSunshine: Sounds good. The one thing I was going to say in response to your post was to revise the OP, because it's certainly not doing justice to the topic you want to discuss and in fact, does hold some inconsistencies with your later posts. In particular, I have to go back to this paragraph I had outed earlier:
On April 11 2014 06:49 NewSunshine wrote: Now that's all fun and good, you can really draw lines like that on any map, but the lines I drew highlight the way the map draws your eye across itself. Doesn't sound too special, but most of the maps I see don't do anything of the sort, and most of the ones that do are Korean. What I'm demonstrating is a sort of macro-aesthetic, where conventional devices like textures and doodads are micro-aesthetics. Definitely looking forward to reading your revision.
|
On April 13 2014 09:15 iamcaustic wrote:@NewSunshine: Sounds good. The one thing I was going to say in response to your post was to revise the OP, because it's certainly not doing justice to the topic you want to discuss and in fact, does hold some inconsistencies with your later posts. In particular, I have to go back to this paragraph I had outed earlier: Show nested quote +On April 11 2014 06:49 NewSunshine wrote: Now that's all fun and good, you can really draw lines like that on any map, but the lines I drew highlight the way the map draws your eye across itself. Doesn't sound too special, but most of the maps I see don't do anything of the sort, and most of the ones that do are Korean. What I'm demonstrating is a sort of macro-aesthetic, where conventional devices like textures and doodads are micro-aesthetics. Definitely looking forward to reading your revision. Definitely. With the part you quoted, I'll emphasize how this aesthetic technique only contributes to eye-movement, when it seemed to be understood that I was implying that was all there is to it. Although what I'm describing is probably tied with textures for being the strongest contributor. Any inconsistencies most likely came from poor communication on my part, but rest assured I understand the subject enough to want to write a post about it, it's just hard to pin down as you could probably tell.
|
|
|
|