Why does mapmaking suck?

Pressing ~ will give you a minimap, but it won't show you your relative position.

---

Mega Tact v1.1
Super Penguin Chef
Wizard Blocks

Backdrops as map layers is the only suggestion here that wasn't already planned.

BMR performs Necromancy!


So, redoing a bunch of maps to make them less bland and whatnot. Was looking at the thread mentioned earlier in this thread, and was wondering if it's still possible to get TileStudio (or anything else) to play nicely with the OHR? I've given TileStudio a go, but can't quite seem to get it working.

But then again, I'm prolly doing something wrong.

---

Being from the third world, I reserve the right to speak in the third person.

Using Editor version wip 20170527 gfx_sdl+fb music_sdl

I hate mapping with a passion.
It pains my soul and my shoulders to do it. Don't question the shoulders bit, it's just a little quirk with me.

I could have everything planned, see mapping that needs to be done, and just...give up. Making, THEN placing the tiles wears me out. That's why I run out of steam with projects, half of the time. Spoon can attest to that when we worked together.

I like that the map editor improved, so you can use dawing tools for mapping, but I don't really like mapping either.
I'll try to motivate me with the thought that a player will walk throug the maps and that finishing them means to be a step closer to finishing the game.
And I'll only build small maps...

A suggestion for those who don't like mapping:
Maybe we could make a game out of it, like a Map building competition with someone elses tilesets? 'Or a "Show of you map"- Threat?

About the layer window:
How about we could give a name to a layer?
I don't like the layer screen, it's complicated to use with all the short cuts like CTRL+L and page up/down in the map editor.

Might be just me, but I don't find the map editor to be as bad as everyone else says. I find that I can get things done well enough and with enough patience. Being able to use an external editor for certain tasks could be useful, but lacking that I can get by using the built-in (with some scripting for some of the tasks I suppose).

The layer screen seems fine to me, takes some getting used to, but I've never really had any complaints with it.

---

Being from the third world, I reserve the right to speak in the third person.

Using Editor version wip 20170527 gfx_sdl+fb music_sdl

By coincidence I am currently doing a little work on the map editor. I didn't state it on my Beelzebufo TODO list, but I figure that UI improvements are better as soon as possible rather than later.



The OHR's tilemap format has not changed since then, if it it no longer works it would be due to a change in TileStudio. However, I see that there has only been one update to TileStudio since then.

Perhaps more likely you didn't follow the instructions precisely, including the bit in the EDIT about resizing the map beforehand? What is the problem you run into?



But it is definitely much worse than it could be.



According to the feedback I hear, the Layers menu is the most confusing and misunderstood editor in the whole engine; even people who have been using the OHR since the beginning sometimes don't understand it. I really welcome all suggestions for improving it. Mockups, anyone?

Several people have suggested map layer (and tileset) names; I'm going to try to add the map layer names now. That should make it much clearer what's happening when you move a layer up or down.

The what in the what? Heh, I suppose that answers my question as to whether or not I did something wrong I'll give it another whirl in a bit. Question though, how would TileStudio handle layers? I've read some of the documentation, and from what I've seen it only does three layers. All of my maps use eight layers though.

Hmm... experimenting time...

---

Being from the third world, I reserve the right to speak in the third person.

Using Editor version wip 20170527 gfx_sdl+fb music_sdl

Thanks TMC! That's great!

Improvements I'd like to see to the map editor include things that are probably unreasonable, but much more user-friendly:

1. More layers. Some of my maps really could use more than 8 layers. Anyone who would want to make a "3D" map design that would include isometric-looking landscapes would also most likely appreciate multiple layers beyond 8. Check out the game Towns, which you can download a free demo of at www.townsgame.com, for an example of how many layers are better for more flexible design than a few.

2. Object stamps. A drag and drop box that allows me to merge tiles into an object (think trees, roofs, etc.) and use that box as a stamp for the map. I know this has been requested many times over the years by multiple people, but I think it goes to show how much the engine needs it.

3. By pixel setting. This is probably the most unreasonable request, but it, unfortunately, gives the engine the most flexibility for map layout. Instead of dropping objects by tile, you could set them down at the pixel of your choice. It would save time and hassle (and tileset space) for authors who want to create jagged tree lines, coasts, or sidewalks (or put objects half on lawns, half on sidewalks), without having to create a brand new tile (or set of tiles) for the discrepancy from the norm.

4. Zone by tile. Just like attaching default walls to specific tiles, it would be nice to have the option to attach default zones to specific tiles. I doubt I personally would ever use it--I never use default walls, either--but I'm sure there are efficient people out there who would love the option of not having to define new zones every time they lay down a lava block somewhere.

5. Embedded global variables to objects. This is something that would require much discussion and would probably end up being the most unclear to designers, but essentially the idea is that specific objects on the map could be marked with global variables, and the number of that variable would change if the object were to change (or vice versa). So, let's say you've laid six treasure boxes on a map, but you want to create a map event out of the order in which those boxes are opened (think Indiana Jones), then the global for that box would count by one every time a new one is opened. Then, if that box = 4, some secret door opens on the other side of the room (also assigned a global) and the player can enter. Or, more simply, if a tree tile global is marked 0, then the tile keeps its default form, but if it changes to 1, 2, 3, etc., then it takes on the form of whatever that number defines. As you can see, it would take a lot of discussion to fine-tune and really make sense of it, but it could also allow for flexibility beyond what simple tag and invisible npc tracking can handle if utilized sensibly. The way I'd want to use it is that if I were to trigger an automap script that called a specific number for a tree tile or stamp (we'll say 3 for argument), then every instance of that tile or stamp would change to the image assigned to that global value 3. Hopefully that's clearer.

That should do well to add to the other suggestions already made.

---

Place Obligatory Signature Here

I also have never disliked the map editor.



This blows me away. As soon as I realized what this meant, I immediately considered it the best part of the map editor. With layers contributing as well, this is even better than it was before.

In regards to Pepsi's request number 5, I'm honestly not sure what aspects of this can not be done with NPC's and/or slices. And I'm not sure what the map editor would simplify. The author would still need a script to trigger the necessary changes. Perhaps the option to place slices as well as NPCs on a map would be helpful? (I've never used slices for anything, so maybe this doesn't make sense)

---

I am Srime

All of it can be done with NPCs and slices. The global variables just makes it more efficient and easier to track. As I said, it would require discussion and possible controversy.

I think of the 70+ cacti that the player can mark in Tightfloss Maiden, or the 100+ trees and benches he can stick fliers and posters on in Entrepreneur: The Beginning. Each of these has an NPC that calls a location-tracking script and "marks" them by changing the value of the global variable so that it can remember the changes (which map save state doesn't do if you're loading from a saved game, if I remember correctly), and ridiculously long and tedious scripts tracking their states and the effects that come with their changed states. Let's say you plunk down a global variable on the object at x34, y56. The variable would memorize the coordinates and record the state: 10340560 (the 1 keeps the first zero from disappearing, and each coordinate is represented by a 3-digit number). Then, if you increment variable (let's say you defined it as "tree1" in the map editor) by 1 and the value changes to 10340561, then the object at that coordinate would do whatever is supposed to happen as defined by "1." Or, if that's too complicated, as I'm willing to bet is the case, then give objects up to four variable states: coordinate, tile reference (the number it corresponds to on the tileset), layer, and state.



TMC didn't ask for what was needed, but for what was wanted for improvement, and I think this would make things a little easier on people who rely on map changes or references to coordinates frequently. I know it's a complicated idea initially, and I don't expect it to gain traction right away, but I think it's worth considering and discussing.

---

Place Obligatory Signature Here

If I understand what you are asking for correctly, I think I know a better way to accomplish it.

I should finish the plan for saving NPC state in save games. Then you could just enable that for the map, you could preserve the state of very NPC on the map, and you wouldn't need a single global variable.

I don't see any utility for this? I don't see any reason why you'd need more than 8 layers-- any "3D" map design would be better accomplished with maybe a few layers, but mostly using slices for any tile which would need to appear 'in-front' of a player, so you can Y-sort them and don't have to fiddle with changing the layer of the player or NPCs all the time. Doing it with the built in layers wouldn't allow sprites to be at different depths, which would ruin the whole point of a "3D" map design.

I'm also curious how you managed to use all 8 layers... Do you actually need 8 separate layers or are they really functioning as 2 or 3 layers with very large tile-sets?


And someone mentioned using a backdrop as tiles. I think what they really want is the ability to pull a rectangular selection of tiles from the tileset, and placing it as a single brush. This would allow you to use a whole tileset as a map very easily, and it has all sorts of other utilities as well.

Interface-wise? My suggestion: Let us use Mark while in the full screen tile picker.

Placing a backdrop as a background is a different matter, but it is done very easily with slices, and I don't see the utility of being able to do it in-engine.

EDIT: All I want is to import map data from Tiled OR the map editor to run in a higher resolution with added mouse support.

I suppose it's a combination of both. The two maps that use all eight layers (and could really use a ninth if I'm to add tile-based weather, which I would like to do so that I don't have to use intrusive waits to animate slices or have weather following my characters around, which is what happens if you fix the slice to the screen rather than the map) each use four tilesets.

I usually set my maps with 5 layers:

0-ground tiles (maybe dirt)
1-base ground objects (maybe a type of flowerpot)
2-details on ground objects (maybe a type of flower) or overlapping base objects
3-base overhead tile (maybe a treetop)
4-detailed or overlapping overhead tile (maybe a bird in the tree)

If I use more than five layers, it's because I have many working pieces involved in the map's design. Usually when this happens, I'll turn Layer 3 into a ground layer and Layer 4 on up into overhead layers. Sometimes a tile will have to act as both overhead and ground depending on the player's position, though I usually use plotscripting to switch between them. In the case of the following two maps, I've had detail on top of stacking or overlapping detail chew up my layers like candy, and I basically had to stop detailing them or stacking tiles because I was out of room. Both maps aren't technically finished because I need a ninth layer to complete the vision (I think nine will finish them) and I don't have one to use. But I'm content to wait.

Here's Cannonball Harbor. The ship is one example where I could've used fewer layers if I had a larger tileset, but it also has several sections that work as overhead tiles, so I'm still using about four layers to build it, not including the water layer.



Map size: 88x54 tiles

The next map is Botsmire Forest: It's a sprawling map with a wide diversity of plant life from shrubs to trees that uses multiple layers to blend everything in seamlessly. It also features two villages with unique architecture and a number of shorelines, bridges, and waterfalls, each using up several layers a pop. The treehouses top the eighth layer.



Map size: 119x166 tiles

So, that's how I maxed out my layers, and why I still need more. A larger tileset would certainly minimize the need for using all eight layers, but even if we increased the number of tiles allowed in a single set, it's too late to rebuild these two maps with new tiles in fewer layers. I've spent far too long designing them to rebuild them again.

---

Place Obligatory Signature Here