![]() |
Re: New map by Jason Lutes
Quote:
|
Re: New map by Jason Lutes
Quote:
|
Re: New map by Jason Lutes
Excuse me for mentioning this, but the other map (parganos) is also very nice. Doesn't have the bridges or the easily recognizable "farm land" fields, but it seems very nice so far. Thanks Jason!
|
Re: New map by Jason Lutes
Quote:
As far as I can tell, there's currently no way to get a display of province numbers. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Look at them in the map editor ... BTW I've just started a game and had a capitol surrounded by two rivers and with ... 1 neighbor http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif Don't have access to the game map right now, will give the province name/number later http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Edit : now I've checked, it's Prov #150 Scythewater, No start flag wasn't positioned. [ April 06, 2004, 20:37: Message edited by: PDF ] |
Re: New map by Jason Lutes
Quote:
If you've been hand editting the .map file to set exactly which provinces aren't starting-province material, my hat's off to you. (It is anyway, for such a great map, but still.) |
Re: New map by Jason Lutes
Quote:
|
Re: New map by Jason Lutes
Quote:
|
Re: New map by Jason Lutes
That's what I figured. It's the same source I have for my belief...
In retrospect it seems like you're more likely to be right, as with 40% sites it always seems like most provinces have sites. Then again, it seems like more than 13% of provinces have no sites... |
Re: New map by Jason Lutes
Quote:
|
Re: New map by Jason Lutes
Quote:
|
Re: New map by Jason Lutes
Quote:
That means that in average 40% of all farmland provinces with such settings have zero magic sites. |
Re: New map by Jason Lutes
Jason, could I ask a question?
I *love* both of these maps. Do you think it would be possible to have the tga *larger*? The provinces are often so small that the little icons (I like the candles, money, temples all on) dont fit in the provinces. What if the .tga file were just a bit larger? (Sorry if this is a stupid question, but I know nothing about mapmaking) Does that make sense? thanks much for listening |
Re: New map by Jason Lutes
Quote:
|
Re: New map by Jason Lutes
Quote:
|
Re: New map by Jason Lutes
oh thanks -- I opened the map file and couldnt find a #defaultmapzoom command. Is that somewhere else? Or if it is not there, must I enter it myself -- does it matter where? And what value(s) does one enter? Sorry and thanks in advance.
|
Re: New map by Jason Lutes
Played with it myself as I had the same desire. You can put #defaultmapzoom right before the #description line. I found that for cradles at least 1.6 or so was about right.
|
Re: New map by Jason Lutes
Wow is that what that does? And all this time I took for granted that it affected the starting position of zoom (pageup/pagedown) so you just started more zoomed out than normal.
(note: I went looking at the mapedit.pdf to see how I could have misunderstood that. Is it just me or is that command missing?) |
Re: New map by Jason Lutes
Quote:
So a flag will take "50% less space" in a province is mapzoom is set to 2 for example. However by doing so the map looks initially more pixellated. You can then zoom out as you want, but the icons will resize correspondingly smaller... Is that clear ? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif |
Re: New map by Jason Lutes
Quote:
So a flag will take "50% less space" in a province is mapzoom is set to 2 for example. However by doing so the map looks initially more pixellated. You can then zoom out as you want, but the icons will resize correspondingly smaller... Is that clear ? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Much, thank you. It sounds like we could use another map command to set the pageup/pagedown zoom level seperately. Hmmmm no that might be too much. Too many petty little commands can intimidate new people from trying mapping. Ishould write up something on "a minimum map project". Kindof like what the Jotun walkthru does for playing the game. Someone might consider that for modding also -- Im trying out new sigs. Would "NetNanny" give the wrong impression? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif www.dom2minions.com [ April 09, 2004, 14:29: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ] |
Re: New map by Jason Lutes
I had no idea about it either. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/blush.gif
Nice to know this thingie. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif |
Re: New map by Jason Lutes
Quote:
|
Re: New map by Jason Lutes
Hi there,
Just doing some SP on this awesome map. I noticed that poor R'lyeh started in province#120, which is a sea province surrounded by non-sea provinces on all sites. Would it not make sense to mark province 120 as nostart? Cheers, Thomas |
Re: New map by Jason Lutes
Quote:
Love the map.. Chokepoint heaven. |
Re: New map by Jason Lutes
Is there a working download site for any of Jason's work anywhere? The links on http://www.illwinter.com/dom2/maps.html currently do not work.
thanks! Verax |
Re: New map by Jason Lutes
Quote:
|
Re: New map by Jason Lutes
I have an idea regarding the passability/impassability of terrain that has been discussed in this thread.
There has been mentioned two example scenarios that Dom2 can't handle, that 1. Rivers. It should be possible to have rivers that can't be crossed by units on foot. 2. Mountains and mountain ranges. It should be possible to cross these with flying units. But how to implement these features with a minimum of work, and complete backwards compatibility? I have a suggestion. The neighbours part of the .map file looks something like this: </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">#neighbour 141 152 #neighbour 141 165 #neighbour 142 167 #neighbour 142 154</pre><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">If we could append a tag to a connection, banning a certain mode of travel, we could have the above mentioned scenarios. Suppose we wanted the second connection to be across a wide river, which would make an ulmish army stop in it's tracks. But the hordes of Ermor would march across the bottom of the river, and Caelum would just fly over it. The third connection could be across a mountain range, meaning that only flying units could cross it, and walking and swimming units would be stopped. In my hypothetical solution it would look like this: </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">#neighbour 141 152 #neighbour 141 165 nowalk #neighbour 142 167 nowalk noswim #neighbour 142 154 </pre><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The concept is that you can append "nowalk", "noswim" or "nofly" to any connection to prevent specific modes of travel. I'm not sure what the point of "nofly" would be, but it should be there for the sake of completeness. "noswim" would include both amphibious and swimming units. Of course, I don't know how difficult this would be to implement, but at least it would be backwards compatible. This could of could of course be expanded to include such tags as "noundead", "nosacred", "nomages" and so forth. They could also be inclusive, like "onlypretenders" or "onlymbeings, you get the idea. But I'm rambling, what do you think? |
Re: New map by Jason Lutes
Something else that ought to be fixed for Jason's Parganos map - province ... 31 should be nostart. It's the little island in the southwest - 4 neighbors, none of them land. Had to call for a mulligan on that yesterday.
|
Re: New map by Jason Lutes
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:46 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.