Large maps?
MstrCat
Newcomer
Is anyone making large maps for rpg games? When I say large, I'm thinking of something like map 2000 feet on a side, but with sufficient detail such that I can zoom in and run rpg battles at a 5-foot per man-sized creature scale? My friends and I have recently started gaming using a virtual table top setup, and there seems to be a bit of a hitch in scales between small maps (less than 100 feet on a side) and large overland maps which really don't zoom down to battle map scale.
I've made some attempts, but ran out of time before I got good enough with the random scatter tools to produce something usable for the game that night.
I've made some attempts, but ran out of time before I got good enough with the random scatter tools to produce something usable for the game that night.
Comments
It is also a lot of work mapping out an area that big with enough details that it doesn't look empty when zooming down.
My Snowport city map allows for that kind of zoom, but it is pretty boring as you zoom in that far.
Fantasy Grounds will be converting to their unity version in December. This will be a 64 bit application and will be able to handle larger maps.
(I'm thinking of the Patreon page I'm planning to start as well)
Maps that are between 300-600 ft square, and possibly larger than that?
Maybe I could do them as modules instead. I rather fancy that idea.
It's all very confusing!
I should really start one of my own!
Apparently maps will still have to be kept relatively small because of the broadband limitations when the DM sends information to his players. Unless the DM has superfast broadband all this 64-bit upgrade might be rather disappointing. I was certainly a bit disappointed. It seems that maps should be kept down to no more than 5MB, which is really quite tiny or extremely compressed and therefore terrible quality.
You can always make a couple of resolutions of the maps you offer. Also remember, I can always reduce the quality of the maps I am using in game. Can't really go the other way around tho...
I also think you'd be surprised at how far you can push your exports and still retain quality. There are a lot of threads floating around where VTT users minimize their export settings while maximizing the output. Perhaps you haven't followed these threads closely in years past because it was just simply something that didn't apply to you.
EDIT:
I saw your FB thread a bit ago, but can't seem to find it right now. I think you were generally asking for advice on what the consumers wanted/needed, correct?
One thing that I don't recall being mentioned is that for VTT use, players are going to be plunking down virtual tokens, and sometimes those tokens can blend in with the maps themselves.
I haven't been able to quantify if yet, but I'm sure there is some combination of shading, color palette, or what-not that helps tokens stand out on the map. Perhaps you could bring up that question in your FB post as a follow-up.
Keeping individual files as small as possible is a good idea, though. Roll20 has a severe limit - 5 MB (I think it is) on the free version, 10 (I think) on the paid version. No idea on Fantasy Grounds. MapTool handles larger files pretty well these days, because it runs on 64 bit Java - provided you have plenty of actual RAM on the computer (and decent bandwidth). But it's rare for me personally, to have a good experience with anything over about 25 meg or so.
Also make sure you know the difference between small file size and small image size. You can compress the heck out of a JPG, and reduce the file size a lot, but if it's still 20,000 by 20,000 pixels, it's going to eat up a lot of display memory.
It'll be a learning experience to figure out how to tweak stuff just so.
(I think the terminology you want is probably "modular tiles," or just "modular". They're more work than you think. But worth it.)
Taustinoc - I think I already have a collection of people interested in testing. One of them showed me an old map of mine on FG - the first time I've ever seen a VTT screen in my life. And why not - I get to see everything is ok, and they get a free map (not that the cost of buying them is going to be massive anyway, but it's a reward)
MstrCat - I am so terribly sorry! You have sparked a longish conversation about the pros and cons of making large maps for VTT. I didn't mean to take over your thread like this, but I hope you find some of the information useful. The modular tiles I'm thinking of making will probably be about half the size as you were asking about when they are placed all together - for example if I make a modular set that is 3 x 3 modular tiles the total size would be 900 ft square. Making one that is 7 x 7 modular tiles would come to a total size of 2100 x 2100 ft, but since it will take far longer to generate than the 3 x 3 would have to be a lot more expensive. For example if I were to set a price of $0.50 for each module the 3x3 set would already cost $4.50, because there are 9 potential battle maps in it, while the 7 x 7 modular set would have to be $24.50. I'm not so sure that anyone would ever buy it, even if I halved that price again. Its a lot more work for a much smaller return.
Unfortunately, I am in a situation where making fills, symbols and maps is my primary and only source of income, and I cannot work for free.
Were I looking to start production of saleable maps for VTTs, I'd render the first few at several different scales, including pretty high, send them to the playtesters, and see what they say. The best way figure out the sweet spot is when the people using them say "that's too big." (There's also nothing wrong with selling maps with several resolutions included. A number of sellers on DriveThruRPG do exactly that, especially on tokens.)
(And I suspect that MstrCat, and anybody else working on large battlemats, will benefit from following this discussion.)
I'm still trying to absorb all the information I've been given, and I'm a long way from producing the first set of modular tiles.
The larger maps I was looking for are nearly all outdoors...typically the last mile before a keep/dungeon/lair ect. This is the place where there would be guards, scouts, traps, ect. Hence there is a very high chance of tactical sorts of encounters, many which can turn into running battles/chases. A continuous map is far better than many hops through a modular one.
I would pay $10 for such a map without thinking too hard, as the price edges toward $20 the decision gets harder.
I have cable internet. One of my main campaign maps (overland) is 26 MB, and Maptools loads the entire campaign for all players in under a minute, fast enough that I never considered it might be a significant factor in map size.
Anyway, I've a bit of time over the weekend, maybe I'll read through the posts on random symbol fill along paths and give it another try.
The module tiles are designed to flow seamlessly into one another because they all come from the one large map, so the options are to use the one large map, or if a DMs system is not as impressive as yours, to use the smaller modules in succession to get around the place and maybe have the whole map at a much lower resolution for reference.
Its been suggested that I go and join Roll20 to go on a sight-seeing tour of what's around. I haven't had time to break off and do it just yet, but I will