CWBP 2 Deciding the map

[Ghostman]

That could cause inconsistensies with the spots where the corners of two blue squares touch.

I'd rather that we don't use predefined mapping areas at all, but instead allow plots to be requested in more of a freeform manner. Perhaps we could use a very dense grid that divides the world into lots of tiny squares? Or maybe a hex grid? That way someone who wants to map a particular geographic area could request a plot made up of the relevant small squares/hexes. To prevent anyone hogging up too much space or otherwise causing problems we could state some simple rules such as "a claimed plot may only include up to so-and-so many tiles" and "all the tiles of the claimed plot must be contiguous". And if we want to have buffer zones between maps to prevent inconsistensies arising on their borders, we could disallow claiming tiles that directly neighbour already claimed areas.

[Falconius]

Unfortunately Ghostman I think that makes it more complicated than it strictly has to be. I too would be attracted to such a system except for the complications in managing it and arranging it. That is why I suggest making bigger plots with buffers and allowing people to map as much or as little in that plot as they like before unlocking it again. This would would achieve the same effect that you desire but make it much more simple and manageable, it also solves the problems your rules try to address.

Again a key point to my proposal, and really the whole point behind it, is that one does not have to map the whole square. The plots merely allow them a work site to freely develop as they wish without interference.

[Ghostman]

I don't see how my suggested system would be too complicated to manage. Could you elaborate on what would make it so hard? Each tile could be labeled with a code like "AA12", "CB50" and so on, so any plot would be easy enough to define just by listing the labels of the included tiles.

The biggest problems with predefined plots are that
1) there will inevitably be much unnecessary space on some plots that the mappers workign on them have no interest in, but which may end up being unavailable to other people for a very long time,
2) a mapper might want to work on a particular geographic feature (an island, a mountain chain, an isthmus, etc) that spans across the borders of multiple plots, meaning that they'll have to either grab all of those plots (assuming that's even allowed) or else work on them one at a time and hope that no one else decides to touch this geographic feature in the mean time. Worse yet, if predefined buffer zones are in place, it would be totally impossible for someone to map a geographic feature that happens to be situated in the buffer area.

[Falconius]

Well, you have to be far more specific in what you define for starters. If people are busy defining ranges from AAG6 to FFG6 to AAG9, it's a lot more difficult than simply say I want plot f5 and maybe f6. If you list the labels individually it could turn out to be a very long list, easy to make mistakes for both those choosing it and those reading to see available space. Buffers if used would have to be defined after that. If not used matching edges by bordering claims would be even more difficult than with a simple grid that they had in CWBP 1. In the meantime other people may have also mistakenly overlaped when deciding their ranges, or may misread the ranges or mislabeled them. For newcomers trying to figure out whats going on would have a much more difficult time trying to figure their way through such a complicated system. We'd also have to create an up to date map dealing with claimed areas and marking them off in order to get an overview. It would be more work to create and maintain such a map as opposed to just redding out large plots. Basically it boils down to the fact that the finer the detail the more labour intensive it becomes. Your system is fine detail, mine is hamfisted slapdash. But I figure if we make the holes big enough its very simple to put the wrong shaped blocks through... (that is a confusing analogy, but I like it so I'm leaving it.)

I have no problem with people claiming multiple plots. Given what I can figure from the other CWBP not everything will be mapped by a long shot. We will be working on a world level not a continental level ( or so I am assuming). Meaning that there will be a lot of space and very likely not near enough mappers to fill it all. I am for dividing the plots geographically rather than into a grid to help alleviate the problem of features being stuck in restricted zones to help with the problems list in point 2.

For point 1 I have no solution except to say that there will be a lot of available mapping areas, and also that people can negotiate to share a claim between themselves if they want. Other than that yes features will likely be locked for long periods without being worked. It is an unpleasant inefficiency.

[Neyjour]

I think a hex grid is also a really good idea. I like the freedom it would give people to choose specific land features that run in various directions, diagonals, etc.

You'd definitely want to set a number of hexes that can be claimed for a single "plot". Say, no more than 4, for example. And again, like Ghostman said, disallow the claiming of any hexes between already-claimed plots. (They would only become available once the hexes touching their borders have been mapped).

The claiming map (with the lettered/numbered grid) would have to be updated quickly once plots have been claimed, to avoid any overlapping, claiming of hexes that should be buffers, etc. The easiest way to do that would be for each person, who is in charge of updating that map, to have a .psd file with all the letters/numbers on a single layer. As soon as someone claims a plot, the first person to see it would just need to erase those letters/numbers, and then re-upload the new version of the map. Very quick and easy. And erasing the letters/numbers (instead of leaving them visible and colouring in the hexes) might be better in avoiding any mistakes of people claiming the same ones. And as the project moves along, the map will become less and less cluttered with letters/numbers, making it even more easy to see what's still available, where those buffer zones are, etc. (This map would just be for claiming only - there would be a separate one for filling in the finished, mapped areas).

Oh, and you would want to provide a (huge) hex template for everyone to download. The dimensions of squares and rectangles are simple enough, but with a hex, people might make mistakes and not realize it until it's too late. With a template that everyone is required to use, there should be no mistakes at all with matching up the borders.

[Neyjour]

Here's a few thoughts on how it could be done, if we decide to go with a hex grid.

The "Claim Your Plot" thread (which would be a sticky), would have 3 versions of the map (as inserted images, not attachments), each with a header and explanation and/or instructions for them. This way, people can quickly and easily open up all 3 (rather than having them in separate threads) and tab back and forth between them for easy reference.



1) This would be the "CLAIMING" map, with the grid and letters/numbers. Here's an example of how it can be labeled.

Hex-Grid-example-2.jpg

As plots are claimed, those letters/numbers are erased and red is put around them to create the buffer zone, like so:

Hex-Grid-example-3.jpg

So basically, any hexes that don't have letters/numbers are already claimed, and any that are red cannot be claimed. Once those claimed plots are fully mapped and placed on the "MAPPED WORLD" map, the relevant red areas will be erased, opening them up for others to claim.

Additionally, for reference purposes (say, you wanted to find the WIP thread for a specific plot on the map that's been claimed), the inner grid lines could be erased, the plot filled in with blue, and then labeled with the name (which would correspond to the title name in the person's WIP thread). This way you don't have to use a bunch of letters/numbers in the WIP thread titles.

Hex-Grid-example-4.jpg


2) This would be the "REFERENCE" map. It would have just the grid with no letters/numbers:

Hex-Grid-example-1.jpg

This is for people who have claimed a plot, so they can have an unobstructed view of their hexes for mapping reference.


3) This would be the "MAPPED WORLD" map, with just the finished mapped plots placed on it.

[Falconius]

That seems like a fair compromise. Looking at it I guess detail is not as much of a problem as I think.

The pixels along the equator of that map are about 4 km across meaning those hexs end up around 250 kms from edge to edge (if one does no accounting for projection). I am curious why there is resistance to dividing the plots according to geography? No matter which way it done it is going to be arbitrary. With the level of detail though we'd have to allow somewhere around 10 plots or more to be claimed at once by one person. If we take the trouble to divide the plots according to the projection it also makes things simpler than warping the hexes.

I'm not sure I understand the need for hexes though. Especially if we alter the grid for projection it's easier to deal in squares (or hand drawn plots). If we go the small plot route choosing squares in an irregular pattern is no problem. Although I guess it does cause problems dealing with the buffer zonez.

[Neyjour]

These are just quick examples. I didn't calculate any distances vs hex size, or anything like that. I just tossed on a hex grid that I found with a Google search.

[Neyjour]

There shouldn't be any problems with the buffer zone if squares are used. Unless I'm missing something...?

It would work basically the same way as the hex grid. You just have to include all the "corner-touching" squares in the buffer as well.

Another real quick example:

Square-Grid-example.jpg

[Falconius]

The hexes are more efficient since there is no corner to corner issues.