My Terrain (Mine!)

[LordBob]

I think it would be really welcome indeed.

As for the content of these 'battlefield detritus' tiles, it might be nice to add a touch of the following, possibly as standlone embellishments:
- a shredded battle standard
- rags & torn pieces of uniforms
- the broken shaft of a spear
- the remains of a trampled on tent
- wrecked siege machines
- ...

For the 'scattered crap', worn out agrary tools, bits of furniture, shattered earthenware, woodwork scraps...


The only limit is your imagination. The more variety we have, the better.


For an artistical side note, it might improve the skulls to add a brighter pixel here and there for highlights, and dark greyish browns for shadows: give them more volume, hint at their features.

[doofus-01]

As for the content of these 'battlefield detritus' tiles, it might be nice to add a touch of the following, possibly as standlone embellishments:
- a shredded battle standard
- rags & torn pieces of uniforms
- the broken shaft of a spear
- the remains of a trampled on tent
- wrecked siege machines
- ...

(bold mine) I think those are good ideas for "item" or "scenery" images, where the image selection and placement is deliberate (I'll give them a shot, separately ). "Embellishment terrain" needs to be more generic, I believe. There's also the question of patterns - the images probably need to be interesting, but not so distinct that repeating patterns are readily visible.

Some of this can probably be taken care of with WML, and that may be part of the problem with the image below (I tried using OVERLAY_P macro, but it did not behave like I expected, maybe it's the damned RNG?). That shield is an eyesore, I think it should be more rare even if it were better drawn, but aside from that, I'm relatively satisfied with what is below, and would focus on the shield and avoiding patterns. Left side is "trash", right side is "battlefield/violence/death". If there is something else still off, let me know.

Thanks.

[SFault]

The red flag is really bright. It seems more like something to interact with rather than element on background. Maybe drenched out colors would match better with bones anyways.

OT: It would be great if someone would do withered forest to match the drought land....

[LordBob]

Some of this can probably be taken care of with WML, and that may be part of the problem with the image below (I tried using OVERLAY_P macro, but it did not behave like I expected, maybe it's the damned RNG?). That shield is an eyesore, I think it should be more rare even if it were better drawn, but aside from that, I'm relatively satisfied with what is below, and would focus on the shield and avoiding patterns

I can't be of much help with the WML (tentatively invokes zookeeper), but other than that we agree. The only tiny nitpick I might have is to slightly desaturate the purple and red cloth (they have likely weathered) so that they stand out less. (edit: SFault beat me to it)
As for the shield, maybe introducing some slight variations of the same base would help break the pattern: more-or-less broken, with/without the arrow, turned at a different angle, ...

[doofus-01]

I desaturated the cloths, and made some variations of noticeable things like the shield.

Maybe it's just the way statistics work, but it seems I still get clusters of identical images, even when said image is supposed to have 1% chance of being used. I could make everything so vague that it doesn't matter, but then what was the point of this? I think that if a third terrain, that is vague and unremarkable but otherwise the same, is available, the map-maker can manually break whatever annoying pattern comes up. This is what it looks like in a big clump, though I doubt it should be used that way:


In attached TGZ, is a folder "litter" with all the images: rbones*.png for the trash; detritus*.png for the battle remains; and liter*.png for the vague stuff meant to patch over repeated images. Let me know if this is an acceptable solution.

EDIT:Removed attachments. See updated versions below.

[fabi]

Isn't this sort of stuff better placed with [item] instead of making a new terrain for it?

[Alarantalara]

It's possible to manipulate the probabilities to get almost any distribution you like:

For instance this example has almost no red but does include all of the detritus*.png images as possibilities. As long as you have at least three images, you can have one of them appear at frequencies as low as 0.01% and that value grows smaller with more images.

If you want to have a really random landscape, I'd suggest the following:
Create a set of base images much like your current litter that are vague.
Create a set of interesting objects that don't stand out a lot that could be placed in moderate density.
Create a third set of objects that do stand out.

The have the game scatter the vague images evenly, the more interesting objects evenly but not on every tile, and the stand out objects at intersections of three tiles but again, not every intersection. This gets you more effective tiles without having to create quite as many images and the different backgrounds for the standout objects will help reduce their repetition. This is what is done for the swamp terrain (skipping the extra intersection images).

[doofus-01]

EDIT: removed the TGZ, updated version below.

If you want to have a really random landscape, I'd suggest the following:
Create a set of base images much like your current litter that are vague.
...
This gets you more effective tiles without having to create quite as many images and the different backgrounds for the standout objects will help reduce their repetition. This is what is done for the swamp terrain (skipping the extra intersection images).

Ah yes, that is much better. Thanks. Never mind the third terrain then.

Even though I would have drawn them differently if that had occurred to me, I think the images still work.

The attached TGZ has the files renamed, so they fit into terrain-graphics like this (not that this couldn't be improved, but it looks close enough to me) :

terrain WML

Code: Select all

[terrain_type]
    symbol_image=misc/trashC-1
    id=tri_trash   
    name= _ "Trash"
    string=^Tshy
    aliasof=_bas
    editor_group=trin
[/terrain_type]

[terrain_type]
    symbol_image=misc/detritusC-1
    id=tri_bones
    name= _ "Remains"
    string=^Tbny
    aliasof=_bas
    editor_group=trin
[/terrain_type]

########### SINGLE ######################

[terrain_graphics]
    map="
, *  
* , *
, 1  
* , *
, *" 

    [tile]
        pos=1
        type=*^Tshy
        set_no_flag=litter_base
    [/tile]
    probability=33
    [image]
        name=misc/trashA-@V.png
        variations="1;2;3;4;5" 
        base=90,144
        center=90,144
        layer=-201   
    [/image]
[/terrain_graphics]

[terrain_graphics]
    map="
, *  
* , *
, 1  
* , *
, *" 

    [tile]
        pos=1
        type=*^Tbny
        set_no_flag=litter_base
    [/tile]
    probability=33
    [image]
        name=misc/detritusA-@V.png
        variations="1;2;3;4;5"
        base=90,144
        center=90,144
        layer=-201   
    [/image]
[/terrain_graphics]  
[terrain_graphics]
    map="
, *  
* , *
, 1  
* , *
, *" 

    [tile]
        pos=1
        type=*^Tbny,*^Tshy
        set_no_flag=litter_base
    [/tile]
    probability=100
    [image]
        name=misc/liter@V.png
        variations=";2;3;4;5;6"
        base=90,144
        center=90,144
        layer=-201   
    [/image]
[/terrain_graphics]

##################### two neighbours ########################

#define TRI_TRASH_B TERRAIN FLAG PROB VARIATIONS IMAGE

# set flags

[terrain_graphics]
    map="
, *  
* , *
, 1  
2 , 2
, *" 

    [tile]
        pos=1
        type={TERRAIN}
        set_no_flag={FLAG}
    [/tile]
    [tile] 
        pos=2
        type={TERRAIN}
        has_flag=litter_base
        no_flag={FLAG}
    [/tile]
    probability=100
[/terrain_graphics]

[terrain_graphics]
    map="
, *  
* , 2
, 1  
* , 2
, *" 

    [tile]
        pos=1
        type={TERRAIN}
        set_no_flag={FLAG}
    [/tile]
    [tile] 
        pos=2
        type={TERRAIN}
        has_flag=litter_base
        no_flag={FLAG}
    [/tile]
    probability=100
[/terrain_graphics]

[terrain_graphics]
    map="
, *  
2 , 2
, 1  
* , *
, *" 

    [tile]
        pos=1
        type={TERRAIN}
        set_no_flag={FLAG}
    [/tile]
    [tile] 
        pos=2
        type={TERRAIN}
        has_flag=litter_base
        no_flag={FLAG}
    [/tile]              
probability=100
[/terrain_graphics]

[terrain_graphics]
    map="
, *  
2 , *
, 1  
2 , *
, *" 

    [tile]
        pos=1
        type={TERRAIN}
        set_no_flag={FLAG}
    [/tile]
    [tile] 
        pos=2
        type={TERRAIN}
        has_flag=litter_base
        no_flag={FLAG}
    [/tile]
    probability=100
[/terrain_graphics]



# draw images

[terrain_graphics]
    map="
, *  
* , *
, 1  
* , *
, *" 

    [tile]
        pos=1
        type={TERRAIN}
        has_flag={FLAG}
        set_no_flag={FLAG}_drawn
    [/tile]
    [tile] 
        pos=2
        type={TERRAIN}
        has_flag=litter_base
        no_flag={FLAG}
    [/tile]
    probability={PROB}
    [image]
        name={IMAGE}-@V.png
        variations={VARIATIONS}
        base=90,144
        center=90,144
        layer=-200   
    [/image]
[/terrain_graphics]

#enddef

{TRI_TRASH_B (*^Tshy) (trash_medium) (70) ("1;2;3;4;5;6;7;8;9;10") (misc/trashB)}
{TRI_TRASH_B (*^Tbny) (detritus_medium) (70) ("1;2;3;4;5;6;7;8;9;10;11;12;13;14;15;16") (misc/detritusB)}


############################## Major ##########################

#define TRI_TRASH_C TERRAIN FLAG FLAG2 PROB VARIATIONS IMAGE

# set flags
[terrain_graphics]
    map="
, 2  
3 , 3
, 1  
3 , 3
, 2" 

    [tile]
        pos=1
        type={TERRAIN}
        set_no_flag={FLAG}
    [/tile]
    [tile] 
        pos=2
        has_flag={FLAG2}
        no_flag={FLAG}  
    [/tile]
    [tile] 
        pos=3
        no_flag={FLAG}
    [/tile]           
    probability=100
[/terrain_graphics]

[terrain_graphics]
    map="
, 3  
3 , 2
, 1  
2 , 3
, 3" 

    [tile]
        pos=1
        type={TERRAIN}
        set_no_flag={FLAG}
    [/tile]
    [tile] 
        pos=2
        has_flag={FLAG2}
        no_flag={FLAG}  
    [/tile]
    [tile] 
        pos=3
        no_flag={FLAG}
    [/tile]
    probability=100
[/terrain_graphics]

[terrain_graphics]
    map="
, 3  
2 , 3
, 1  
3 , 2
, 3" 

    [tile]
        pos=1
        type={TERRAIN}
        set_no_flag={FLAG}
    [/tile]
    [tile] 
        pos=2
        has_flag={FLAG2}
        no_flag={FLAG}  
    [/tile]
    probability=100
[/terrain_graphics]

# draw images
[terrain_graphics]
    map="
, *  
* , *
, 1  
* , *
, *" 

    [tile]
        pos=1
        type={TERRAIN}
        has_flag={FLAG}
        set_no_flag={FLAG}_drawn
    [/tile]
    probability={PROB}
    [image]
        name={IMAGE}-@V.png
        variations={VARIATIONS}
        base=90,144
        center=90,144
        layer=-199   
    [/image]
[/terrain_graphics]

#enddef

{TRI_TRASH_C (*^Tshy) (trash_big) (trash_medium) (30) ("1;2;3;4") (misc/trashC)}
{TRI_TRASH_C (*^Tbny) (detritus_big) (detritus_medium) (50) ("1;2;3;4;5;6;7") (misc/detritusC)}

[LordBob]

Looks really good now, the feeling of pattern is completely gone.

So I'd say good to commit. (I'd do it myself if I knew better where and how the terrain WML needs to be implemented).

Possible improvement for the future: check how well it works on snowy terrain, create an alternate set if necessary.

[Iris]

First, the usual disclaimers: I’m not an artist, I’m not a lawyer, and I am not trained to operate heavy machinery in hazardous environments.

One of the shield variations really bothers me:

bones7-shield.jpg (24.37 KiB) Viewed 4847 times

It seems to me as though it’s being lit from a completely different angle than everything else on the field, which draws a lot of attention to it. Other than that, I don’t see any problems.

[fabi]

Isn't this sort of stuff better placed with [item] instead of making a new terrain for it?

Bumping my question.

Can someone please answer to my concern?

[doofus-01]

Possible improvement for the future: check how well it works on snowy terrain, create an alternate set if necessary.

It doesn't look perfect, but probably works for now (in my opinion). Are the random dark splatters the only issue? If I completely separate those from the chunks and discernible things, maybe then they can left out or replaced for snow or sand.

Yes, there are some patterns. My terrain rules are not mainline quality.

One of the shield variations really bothers me:

And it looks too clean. I think it is fixed now.

bones9.png (42.12 KiB) Viewed 4828 times

I touched up a couple other images, so now this is the current image set, I'm removing the one above.

litter.tgz

(324.85 KiB) Downloaded 244 times

Isn't this sort of stuff better placed with [item] instead of making a new terrain for it?

Bumping my question.

Can someone please answer to my concern?

Two responses that I have:
1. The rock embellishments and little mushrooms are similar principle, and that seems OK. They could just be [item]s, but they are terrains, and as far as I know, it has worked out well.
2. It's less of a pain in the ass to place a large patch of this as a terrain, maybe even location filtering is easier. On the other side, is there anything preventing the use of a specific terrain image in [item], if the designer wants?

There are something like 20^4 terrain codes available, if not more, so they aren't a scarce resource. What's your argument against this as a terrain?

[H-Hour]

1. The rock embellishments and little mushrooms are similar principle, and that seems OK. They could just be [item]s, but they are terrains, and as far as I know, it has worked out well.
2. It's less of a pain in the ass to place a large patch of this as a terrain, maybe even location filtering is easier. On the other side, is there anything preventing the use of a specific terrain image in [item], if the designer wants?

I would just echo this and say that I have found the embellishments category in the map editor very convenient. Placing scenery like this is about aesthetics and being able to see immediately how it looks on the map really helps for those like myself who take care in placing embellishments "just right".

[LordBob]

So much for commit-ready, I did miss that shield. The replacement looks better, though.

It doesn't look perfect, but probably works for now (in my opinion). Are the random dark splatters the only issue?

Regarding adaptation to snow (and sand) tiles, the concept is that on such terrains detritus tend to get progressively buried. Smaller elements are likely to be completely invisible, medium ones noticeable by a bulge in the ground and maybe a tiny spot of exposed material, and the larger ones will protrude from the ground with their horizontal surfaces partly covered in snow/sand.

However, this 'proper' way probably requires that you duplicate and edit, every single base picture, which is why I labeled it as a possible "future" improvement. Until we get there, what you're proposing could be an acceptable compromise, and maybe also a good first step towards the aforementionned improvement.

Isn't this sort of stuff better placed with [item] instead of making a new terrain for it?

From a purely functional point of view, I would rather reserve the "items" category for one-of-a-kind remarkable elements that can either be interactive or play a specific part in a scenario as landmarks, waypoints, objectives, ... Repetitive senery that performs a decorative function feels like it belongs more in the "embellishment " terrain group.

[fabi]

1. The rock embellishments and little mushrooms are similar principle, and that seems OK. They could just be [item]s, but they are terrains, and as far as I know, it has worked out well.

1. The little mushrooms and the rocks are rather small, non distracting beings. And yes, they work well as a terrain.
Your new set contains some eye catchers like pierced skulls, swords, bloody body parts and so on.
This eye catchers are distributed randomly, you can't enforce one of them at a certain hex.
This leads to point 2.

2. What you see in the map editor is not what you get in the game.
The tiles' random distribution is dependent on the amount of terrains available.
In the editor you have more terrains around than those included in the scenario, leading to a different distribution.
Thus, highly distracting eye catchers will appear at locations the designer might not want them to be placed when using the editor.

3. [item]s can be used on every hex field, while the terrain can only be combined with a base terrain that is still only one layered before the usage.

2. It's less of a pain in the ass to place a large patch of this as a terrain,...

They should be used sparely, on places where a past battle was quite heavy.
Just filling large terrain patches won't do the scenario any good.

...maybe even location filtering is easier.

You can already store [item] locations into variables.
Filtering for [item] in SLF is a feature request I want to implement before the 1.12 release.
Although you can use a new editor feature to define [area]s for the former battle field which can then be addressed in SLFs.
Those three features should make filtering for them easy enough.

I would just echo (edit: What doofus-01 said) this and say that I have found the embellishments category in the map editor very convenient.

Yes, the embellishments category in the map editor is convenient, thus we should not put stuff in there that don't belongs in, to keep it convenient.

Placing scenery like this is about aesthetics and being able to see immediately how it looks on the map really helps for those like myself who take care in placing embellishments "just right".

That is exactly my point, I agree very much.

As written above, using it as a terrain won't let you see immediately how the map really looks, quite the contrary.

On the other hand, using them as [item]s will placing them "just right".

Are you aware that the current editor in the development versions allows exactly what you want,
placing [item]s on the map, displaying them exactly how they later appear in the scenario?

Thus with [item]s you get exactly what you want.

On the other side, is there anything preventing the use of a specific terrain image in [item], if the designer wants?

No there is not.
It is just that we should not support both, a terrain and an [item] group (yes there are item groups in the editor now, working similar as the terrain ones) at the same time.

Since the [item] approach is superior (in this case) let's drop the terrain.