Mapping Help

[Dragon324 16]

Okay so today I finally hit the first part of my game that needed the woods tileset. After looking at the woods tileset I played around with it. After a while I did not like what I created so I tried again and well this is what I got:

However to me this does not look right? Maybe I'm exaggerating or something but to me this does not look as good as I thought it would :mellow: . So I was hoping that anyone with experience with the woods set would tell me what I'm doing wrong here? Thanks :alright:

[Kiriashi 117]

I see your using mah path "technique" <3. Good boy. (Though you need to make the very straight parts more variated.

 

Anyways, I know exactly the problem that you're having trouble identify. While your map is quite nice, it isn't very woodsy. The reason for this is that ALL areas that aren't the path need to be "thick," considering forests aren't as often traversed as say a castle road, so obviously there is going to be a lot more growth.

 

Most people fix this with the canopy autotiles. One person who does it quite well is Lizzie, as you can see in her current project:

 

http://www.rmxpunlimited.net/forums/topic/7853-rmxpdungeons-of-eternity/

 

However, this is not my.. style, if you will. I personally hate those autotiles, but they can be used effectively.

 

What I would do is use intense layer splicing to make incredibly thick tree borders around your map. Basically an exaggerated version of my third mapping tutorial.

 

If you are still having trouble, you can send me the your map and I will show you what I mean.

[Dragon324 16]

Ok kiri he is attempt 2 is that any better?

[Kiriashi 117]

Yes the trees are better, but your path was nicer in the first one. xD

 

Like I said, better, but not quite taking full advantage of layer splicing.

 

You're ultimate goal is to have ONLY tree tiles around the border. No grass, tall grass or anything should be visible -- around the borders that is.

 

Also I noticed you didn't even make use of the giant tree. D:

 

last but not least, remember there are a lot more than three layers. The priorities of tiles in the set can be manipulated for your benefit in the database (higher priority tiles are always on top regardless of layer), and you can also use the event layer.

[Heretic86 25]

To add to Kiriashi's statement, if you do use Events for a Tile, dont forget to turn Walking Animation off. It does affect performance slightly. It allows for 4 layers instead of the 3 standard reserved just for tiles.

 

Also to add to his statement, defining Layer Splicing. Each tree has individual tiles. When those tiles are next to each other, they APPEAR to form a tree. Each one of those tiles does not have to be on the same layer as the other tiles of the same tree.

 

I also agree with the idea that the Trees should define the Border along the path, to a certain extent. Using other natural debris like Logs or other Plants can help it to feel a little more natural, like it is a dense forest as opposed to being sparce, which would be more like an open plain, where a few trees wouldnt form any natural borders, except hopefully for the borders of the map.

 

I think the map itself is very good. I like the way that the trees overlap, and there isnt any recognizable patterns to it. And the path is not straight and perfectly even, which I love. The trees themselves look pretty dense, but to rate the density, they hit about a 5 out of 10, where to feel really dense, they need to hit about a 7 or an 8.

[Dragon324 16]

Thanks kiri >< I thik I'm starting 2 get the hang of it :sweatdrop:. An hertic u think so? I usually don't think much of my maps. I know I have improved a lot but I still feel like there not quite good enough u know? Anyway here is number 3

And ty both 4 giving ur input!

Edited October 28, 2011 by Dragon324

[Heretic86 25]

I do see something in that last version of the map I really like. Upper right hand corner, you have a tree partially obscuring a log. I love styles like that! To me, it feels like that adds depth, like we arent just looking at one static tree, like there can be something behind or in front of it. It looks very natural!

 

I do think you've got the hang of it. I don't think there will be much else that you'll be able to do without "expanding your palette". Its a limitation every single one of us run into eventually. We want to throw in a tile from another mapset, but its not available in this or that one. The solution (not without cost) is to merge tilesets. If you don't go crazy, like I did, you can import tilesets into the game. Inquisitor has some of the best tilesets to date, but they are massive and take literally hours to import. They aren't all perfect, there are a couple of shadow issues I ran into, but was able to fix with photoshop.

 

One of the consequences of importing larger tilesets to expand your palette is that the game performance can suffer on slower computers. But thats if you go insane and merge every single tileset with every other tileset out there. Dont go nuts. Try merging the Forest and Forest Town tilesets. Its still quite a bit of work as the game only imports the images, you have to set up all of the passage settings, priority settings, bush, counter (tables that you can "talk across), and since you are using XP, your passage settings are 4 times more of a pain because each tile has 4 passage settings. It takes time to import a new merged tileset, but it does expand your palette by that same ammt. One advantage of that imported tileset is that the image itself resides as a file that you can go back and edit later, in case you need to fix something or add something else to it. The Disadvantage is that all importing, as far as I know, has to be done manually. Every single tile setting has to be done on each and every tile. Very very very time consuming. I was able to sucessfully import one of Inquisitor's tilesets, but I think it took me something like six hours, which is just nuts and asking for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome.

 

I think its about time that you tried importing a new larger (not insanely larger) tileset to enhance your palette. However, I believe you have what it takes to make awesome looking maps! If you do decide to try merging two tilesets, one bit of advice that I can offer is on Tree Shadows. The edges of the shadows where no actual parts of the Tree itself are visible. Mark those tiles with a Priority of 1, otherwise you run into "map holes" or places that the player is able to walk through even though there are other unpassable tiles there. Like a log with a part of a tree shadow will allow the player to walk thru the shadow even though the log is normally unpassable. Fix that by setting that part of the shadow to a Priority of 1. It should have a star there on the Priority. The rest of it, just reference the existing tilesets for how to set the priorities, bush flags, and what not. I think you'll definitely benefit from that extensively.

[Kiriashi 117]

Better and better.

 

 

The area highlighted in black (oxymoron...) needs to be even thicker, so that there really is a border.

 

The burgundy lines denote very linear placement of trees. I only marked a few, so hopefully you can pick them all out and variate your floral placement just a bit more.

 

Another technique I like to use is to make a "fog" film of shade (just a low opacity black or dark green) for the edges of the forest so that it looks more... forest-y

[Tenoukii 0]

I'm not really a mapper or anything... but to me there's something a bit odd about the mossy rocks? Perhaps you could try finding some different rocks to add onto the tileset/use as character-y graphics to give it more variation as they're all identical?