PDA

View Full Version : CWBP 2 Deciding the map



Azelor
11-16-2013, 05:02 PM
Cooperative Worldbuilding Project 2

Here is the thread to discuss about the map we would like to see for our world. The project is about building a setting as a community. A good setting needs a good map and to do that, everyone is welcome to participate by posting a map or sharing his opinion. Participation in this step of the project does not oblige anyone to participate in further steps of the project but it's highly encouraged.

New entries are welcome.

Azelor
11-16-2013, 05:19 PM
Entry 1:

59185

Same version with dark water

59427

With rivers

59428

Thurlor
11-16-2013, 08:20 PM
I'm not sure if anyone is interested but I have a couple of old world maps that I made and never used that I would be willing to present for use. Keep in mind that they are still unfinished (in terms of elevation data) and I won't bother finishing them unless they get shown some interest. I might also throw out some slightly modified worlds that are randomly generated.

Why the insistence on using the Mercator Projection? I've always considered it to be a butt ugly choice for world maps, however I quite like the Equirectangular Projection so maybe my opinion should be ignored. :) Anyway, because I am feeling exceptionally lazy at the moment my two entries will be remaining in Equirectangular Projection unless they get chosen or it turns out to be a real problem having them not be Mercator Projection. Sorry in advance if this is an issue.

Below I present my two 'designed' worlds. Please keep in mind that both are unfinished (the second more so than the first.

Entry 2:

59067


Entry 3:

59068

Falconius
11-17-2013, 11:12 AM
I've taken the liberty to modify your map Azelor, I hope you don't mind. So here is a proposal, mangled into Equirectangular projection. It may require a bit of a fix where I tried to mangle it into the projection, but it looks alright on a globe.

Edit: Whoops I just realized (like days later :?:) this sounded like I was hijacking your proposal, which wasn't my intent. I was making another proposal here of my own (which was based on yours), so now I guess this is entry five considering DearCyrus' is #4.

Entry #5
Modified Azelor World:

feanaaro
11-17-2013, 12:10 PM
If you start from fractal terrains, as it appears you are doing now, you should perhaps consider using the incise flow, and possible erosion, function to make the map more believable and interesting. This, I believe, is still the best tutorial for FT. (http://www.ridgenet.net/~jslayton/CGTutorial/)
Also, even if it is none of my business, I am against Mercator too, it just looks bad.

Falconius
11-17-2013, 12:58 PM
The goal behind the projection is for final plot choice. Right now it is not as important as when it is finalized. And it is your business too! Please feel free to contribute. I think the more maps we have to choose from at the end the better the end result will be.

Hai-Etlik
11-17-2013, 03:58 PM
Why the insistence on using the Mercator Projection? I've always considered it to be a butt ugly choice for world maps, however I quite like the Equirectangular Projection so maybe my opinion should be ignored. :)

Mercator allows you to chop out small sections and end up with something that has minimal distortion without reprojecting. All you need to do is apply a scale correction based on the latitude. That's why it's the projection used by zoomable web maps like Open Street Map and Google Maps. It does look horrible at the scale of continents though. Plate Carree/Equirectangular on the other hand looks ugly no matter what with the stretching it causes at the poles. About the only projection that's more ugly is Cylindrical Equal Area (Including Gall-Peters and Hobo-Dyers) which amplifies the stretching beyond that of Equidistant Cylindrical (Including Plate Carree/Equirectangular)

PS: Confused this with the other CWBP thread. In terms of prospective base maps, there's no particular reason to use Mercator. Plate Carree is probably the best choice as it's easy to reproject.

waldronate
11-17-2013, 08:18 PM
By starting with a Mercator projection, you've already decided that there's nothing interesting at the poles.

Falconius
11-17-2013, 08:33 PM
There is no need to start at a Mercator projection, do whatever floats your boat or achieves your goal. This thread is merely for deciding the world map, if your world map is on a disk, or a Dyson sphere, or a ringworld, rather than a globe feel free to submit that too. Were are not starting off with any predefined set of rules for this place, it is ours to make of it what we will. The Mercator projection is being suggested for final copy simply for a way to manage mapping plots. Please don't limit yourself if you want to contribute, splat the map out in whatever form works. If major areas at the poles are of interest to you then we will work that out later. We can always snip out a pole continent and present it in reasonable projection.

DearCyrus
11-18-2013, 11:11 PM
Entry 4:
59139

Pretty rough, just tried some land shapes, really... any thoughts?

Azelor
11-19-2013, 02:19 AM
About mercator: it gives the best results concernig the world as a whole (exept for the poles, yes it's awful for that and I did not thought about it since thre is noting on my map's poles). It's useful for navigation but it's not important here. But mercator is also aweful because it stretch the high latitudes. I don't like it either but I thought that it was somewhat more practical.

You people are right about projections and the fact that the world might not even by a globe. That is something I did not anticipate. So mercator and equirectangular are suggested projections only. I will change it right now. I will also put my map with the equirectangular projection because that is the one I am using normally.

Feeraano: it would be better but it's just a world map so it doesn't need that much detail.

Falconius
11-28-2013, 09:28 PM
Alright here is my second proposal for us:

Map entry #6

Azelor
11-29-2013, 08:09 PM
I don't think there will be another proposal, so unless someone plan to participate at the last minute, the voting should begin in 5 hours.

Azelor
11-30-2013, 01:55 AM
Ok time to vote !

Eilathen
11-30-2013, 12:35 PM
Do you want votes from people who will, in all likelyhood, not participate in the project? I mean i have a favourite map that i'd like to see fleshed out but as i will not be an author on it, maybe i should not vote.
Wanted to make sure before screwing with the poll ;)

Azelor
11-30-2013, 02:37 PM
Do you want votes from people who will, in all likelyhood, not participate in the project? I mean i have a favourite map that i'd like to see fleshed out but as i will not be an author on it, maybe i should not vote.
Wanted to make sure before screwing with the poll ;)

see further down

Falconius
11-30-2013, 06:32 PM
I don't know, I think that being a community map project that it's not just for those who have plans on working directly on it. I've been considering it more sort of a guild project which includes everyone here... Limiting to the few who have expressed an interest seems pointless and exclusive to me, which is not what I want to see from this project. I think that once we have the foundations down some more would also want to work on it, should we also exclude them bases on the idea that they did not vote on the over all world?

Thurlor
11-30-2013, 08:39 PM
As Falconius said. Open for all.

Azelor
12-01-2013, 03:01 AM
I agree, it's not possible to know if someone will participate in the future or not, so it's pointless. We are here to find the best map for the project and every help should be welcome.
My point was that if someone is sure at 100% that he won't participate : he should not vote because I don't want the participants to end with a map they don't like. BUT, I would gladly accept their vote if they review the maps.

On another topic, do you think it would be a good idea to take the best of all posted maps and put it together?

Falconius
12-05-2013, 08:32 PM
I feel like we need more votes for this.

Azelor
12-05-2013, 09:10 PM
I was expecting at least 20 voters to be honest.

Falconius
12-05-2013, 09:35 PM
What should we do? Just continue on anyways? There hasn't been very much response to the settings thread either. Maybe there will be more activity over the holidays I wonder?

Azelor
12-05-2013, 11:46 PM
Maybe. I feel the Guild is not as active as it once was in 2008, when the other project started. But at the same time : Most users ever online was 975, 06-01-2013 at 12:44 PM.

Maybe it would have been better to discuss the kind of world we wanted before submiting maps?

Azelor
12-06-2013, 04:31 PM
I need to clarify something. Some people seems afraid to paticipate because they think it will be time consuming. But this is not a WOW guild where you need to be connected all the time. People give what they feel like or help any way they can. It could be several times a week or contribute just one map, it dosen't matter.

Falconius
12-07-2013, 11:44 AM
The poll is now closed though, can people vote now?

Azelor
12-07-2013, 12:13 PM
I don't know how to reopen it but people can still participate in the topic. I will see what I can do.

Azelor
12-10-2013, 06:38 PM
If someone has a map he would like to share for this project, he is welcome to do so. Nothing has been decided yet; it is still open for discussion.

Falconius
12-10-2013, 10:01 PM
With the amount of participation we saw on this I'd definitely agree. I don't know if anyone else on the board is interested in this but I seriously encourage you, any and all, to join the discussions.

@Azelor: Perhaps we (or rather you, since you are doing all the heavy lifting :) and started this thread) should restructure this thread as for submissions only and then when we feel we have enough interest open up a poll. I'm not certain as to how many people actually are paying attention to this board. I feel that more would be interested if they knew what was happening here, especially newer members.

Azelor
12-10-2013, 11:12 PM
When I come to the forum, I always select the ''What's new?'' so I often end up watching the mapmaking requests... Anyway, I'm not convicted we have a visibility problem.

I changed the first post, what do you think ?

Falconius
12-14-2013, 12:05 PM
I don't know I feel people are hesitant to join in the discussion, even if they are seeing it. I can't think of any solutions to open it up more though.

Azelor
12-15-2013, 12:28 PM
:x More though ! What do you mean by that ?

Falconius
12-15-2013, 06:06 PM
It is just poor grammar. What I mean is that I can't think of any solutions to make people feel comfortable joining in the discussion. In other words to open it it up somehow for them.

modernhamlet
12-17-2013, 03:02 PM
It is just poor grammar. What I mean is that I can't think of any solutions to make people feel comfortable joining in the discussion. In other words to open it it up somehow for them.

As a infrequent visitor/lurker, here's my take:

First, I think a big part of it is that it's December. People are just really busy this time of year. You're much more likely to get traction once the new year is here.

Beyond that, you're probably dealing with a few different kinds of concerns for people:
1. Committing to the project, but not having the time to "pull your weight"
2. Being willing to give up total creative control in order to be part of a collective project
3. Worrying that (by comparison) one's work (maps, cultural background development, sociological detail) will be "lame" (Just look at the quality of the work produced by the folks involved in this thread before you say this isn't important...)
4. Lack of direction/clarity OR lack of flexibility. Yeah, this is a double edged sword, but some people "need" a clearer global vision from which to work, while others will be turned off by what minimal parameters are imposed.

Not sure if that's helpful or not! I do hope this gets momentum, as it's a nice idea.

Azelor
12-17-2013, 08:10 PM
I started the discussion 4 months ago already...

aside from that:

1- That is not a problem from my point of view but maybe people are not convinced.
2- most of the creative part is left untouched, such as the style of the map and all the details. Other things can be deicided as a group.
3- I suppose it's possible to spice things up or help the person in the process.
4- Azelor/Falconius : yes I totally understand that part

Thanks for the input !

Falconius
12-18-2013, 06:59 AM
1. I'm with Azelor. There are no time limits, and you take on what you want to complete it in your own time. If you decide you don't want it anymore you just say so and it will be put back in the pool. There is absolutely no chance of running out of things to do and there is no weight to pull. I don't know how to convince others of this though.

2. Could be a negative or a boon. I think only the most minimal of control is being given up. What is being given up though is being given up merely to be developed in co-operation, so people may not be giving up as much creative control as they think.

3. I would have hoped that this would be a good platform for people to learn and develop their skills or for those who are too shy to just dive into the WIPs on their own. That could be unrealistic though. I should note that 'living by comparison' is no way to advance through life in any case, so I would hope people join regardless of whether they think their stuff is lame or not. I can also tell you from experience that the Artist is often not a very good judge of their own work. It's why people hire editor's and so forth. I know this because it is a struggle I have with my own things. Indeed it could very well be the central struggle of any artist, to overcome your fears of just putting stuff out there and 'bearing your soul to the world.' ( Hehe how's that for melodrama?) The ability to do so may be the only thing that actually defines who is and who isn't an artist. That said, it's a personal struggle for people that they have to deal with on their own, there is not much we can do to help until they decide to make the jump.

4. Lol Yeah, though I never really thought of the argument coming the other way like that. Azelor and I keep butting heads over this, making input from outside parties invaluable I think. Especially from those who even have the slightest inkling of participating in this, as this point will directly effect them in their endeavors on this project and is a large component of point 2.

Cheers.

modernhamlet
12-18-2013, 12:22 PM
For the record, I understand and agree with all your responses. I was just brainstorming different reasons for the subdued interest.

To be honest, I think you should just march forward with the "team" you've got. People will come. People will go. But as long as there's someone creating, the project is still alive.

Azelor
12-19-2013, 04:49 PM
Yep but we blocked on the map choice.

jbgibson
12-23-2013, 11:36 PM
Suggestion: let's list some of the pros & cons of the various choices. Example - 1&5 minimize tropics, 2/3/6 have a moderate amount, and 4 has the most.

If divided into squares, 4 probably has the most that are landlocked, followed by 1,2,& 5, with 3 & six maybe more coastal bits. Having participated in several geofiction build-your-own nation games, I can say people are drawn to coasts - it's easier to envision connections & conflict. With landlocked territory one is really stuck with however your neighbors develop. Not to say interior spaces are uninteresting - if you want a silk road across vast desert expanses, skinny isthmuses won't be prospects.

In that vein, 2/3/6 seem to have the most semi-protected waters to become cradles of early shipborne transport, followed by the others. That's a maybe, depending on currents and wind patterns.

1/3/5 have some pretty isolated lands, depending on how proficient our explorers and colonists are (thinking flora & fauna as well as people). That would give us better rationale for wildly different races, critters, ecosystems.

Shall we say we're somewhere between sword age and cannons, maybe with great differences in development level? That doesn't affect the terrain, but it'll have bearing on the manmade features.

As far as inducement for voting, how about if those who vote - for anything! - get a say in the pool of continent & ocean names? Best if we have several to choose from for each, but to stick possibilities in the pool could be a perk. Sure, the myriad cultures on a fantasy world will have a myriad+1 names, in local tongues, but for *our* purposes it's a bummer to be referring to "landmass 3" and "ocean F". Common names won't tie one down - one's map doesn't even have to use latin script! :-).

A flaw in thinking, IMHO, when building a cooperative array of nations, is that many, many folk want their territory to be the best and brightest. That way lies the Lake Woebegon effect, where everybody is above average. We are pursuing this mostly to make maps, not so much to role play the nations and peoples, but acknowledgement up front that *nobody* is top dog should help. We are partly mitigating that tendency by chopping area up geometrically instead of by political boundaries, but the competitive mindset is grating to other participants. Not to say one's obviously nautical territory doesn't have extensive fleets, and considerable trade - just that I don't get to say that stretch over there outside my box is all vassal states to the Mighty My Own Empire.

What's Really Fun is the negotiation & compromise to get edges to match up.

What are some other deciding characteristics of the worldmap choices?

Falconius
12-24-2013, 10:42 AM
Neighbors don't really have to agree all that much, especially if we use the variable plots I'm advocating. For one thing one does not expect medieval maps to even be semi accurate. And with the variable plot method the intervening areas between maps will be filled in after having established earlier maps with which they intersect. Here is an example of what I mean.
59909
Red areas are at the moment un-mappable and blue areas are the plots where a person can map, the green areas are plots that people have chosen to do. As long as a person is working in a plot that plot is locked off for them alone. When they finish the map the plot opens back up for others to work with if they so choose. They can choose as much or as little of an area in whatever shape they want. I feel that this will lead to greater intrest and flexibility in the project.

So for example the guy in C4 is only mapping about half his available area, but no one else can take over the other half (unless of course he feels like working with that person or in a partner ship). Essentially during the time he chooses to keep it it is his to do with what he will.

In F3 and F4 the person claimed adjacent plots, in this case he can choose to map the intervening space. for the restricted areas, should sufficient map information be completed in either plot adjacent to it they will open up and be mappable.

I'd also say that if a person chooses to just map a city in an empty plot that also locks off the plot till its done, but I didn't do an example of that.

Nor do the plots have to be strictly arranged in a grid. It makes sense to arrange them according to the geography as well, as long as they all have labels it shouldn't be a problem.

This is just an example, I think that the restricted zones should actually be a bit wider. Another alternative altogether is to have an many small plots and people claim as many as they feel necessary to complete their maps. I feel the first example is simpler to execute though.


On breaking down the land points that way that is indeed an interesting way to look at them. I hadn't really considered that. Personally however my main interest is in the land forms and a lot of variation.

Azelor
12-24-2013, 12:48 PM
Neighbours don't really have to agree all that much, especially if we use the variable plots I'm advocating. For one thing one does not expect medieval maps to even be semi accurate. And with the variable plot method the intervening areas between maps will be filled in after having established earlier maps with which they intersect. Here is an example of what I mean.

We are not doing an atlas; we just need the map to be easy to understand and to look good.


Ok I see the point. So the space between plots will be mapped after the surrounding maps are done but who will do it? Is it 50/50 between the two mappers or is it collaboration between them in order to blend both styles together? I think the latter would look better but it is also more complicated.

About mapping a city; I don't think we should lock the plot since the city is probably just a dot on the regional map. But we should lock the city. Also, since city shape depend on the landscape, it might usually be better to map it after the regional map is done but not mandatory.

The plot arrangement does not have to be a grid, you are right but it just need some order. As long as we define specific area (just like you did) it should work fine. Also, I changed my mind about political boundaries; they are not that good for plot placement.

Neyjour
12-24-2013, 02:24 PM
I really like Falconius' idea. :) Here's another option that expands on that, but slightly different.

Blue is mapped first. So you get to choose from a large square, a smaller square, or an even smaller rectangle (for pieces that fall around the very outer edge of the map).
Red cannot be claimed until all the blue areas around its (relevant) borders have been mapped.

Ghostman
12-25-2013, 06:38 AM
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
12-25-2013, 07:19 AM
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
12-25-2013, 08:29 AM
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
12-25-2013, 08:52 AM
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
12-25-2013, 10:25 AM
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
12-25-2013, 12:20 PM
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.

59921

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

59922

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.

59924


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

59923

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
12-25-2013, 12:38 PM
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
12-25-2013, 01:01 PM
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
12-25-2013, 01:34 PM
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:

59926

Falconius
12-25-2013, 04:13 PM
The hexes are more efficient since there is no corner to corner issues.

Neyjour
12-25-2013, 04:40 PM
Yeah, the squares are do-able, but the hexes definitely work better with the buffer idea.

One of the reasons why I prefer the hexes over the squares is simply because they look so much more interesting and visually appealing. And much more fun when it comes to picking out plot combinations. :P

Ghostman
12-25-2013, 04:58 PM
Thanks for making those example pictures Neyjour, they do a lot better job of explaining the system of tile claiming than my post did.

As for the grid resolution, a simple setup might be 200 tiles west-east, 100 tiles north-south. On Earth-sized planet that would mean each tile is 200 kilometres wide at the equator, but much smaller near the poles.

If we chose to use rectangular tiles rather than hexes, we could vary their density by latitude -- instead of a uniform grid, we'd be dividing the map into horizontal bands and then dividing each band vertically into a number of tiles, with the bands close to the equator having more tiles than the bands close to the poles. I don't know of any way to automate this process though, so it might be too much work for too little gain.

Azelor
12-25-2013, 08:13 PM
What is the point in having buffer zone if they are as big as the other tiles? While these tiles are locked, they can't be mapped and according to Neyjour example, it's well over 50% (72% in that case). Or 2,5 buffer tiles for each selected tile.
Are buffers made to make a better transition between maps ?

Neyjour
12-25-2013, 10:48 PM
Ghostman - No prob! For stuff like this, I need a visual, and I thought it might help others too. :)

Azelor - Yes, that's it exactly. :) I've been reading over some of the threads from the previous project and have seen a few instances where people had to go back and edit their maps to match them up properly. Having buffer areas that can only be mapped after their bordering areas are finished would eliminate that problem.

Azelor
12-25-2013, 11:23 PM
So the buffer tiles will have to take surrounding maps into account. But, won't this make these tiles unpopular since they will be harder to map ?

Neyjour
12-26-2013, 12:35 AM
I'm not really sure why you think they would be harder to map. I think some people might actually find it fun and inspiring to match up their borders with other people's roads, terrain features, special areas and points of interest, neighboring villages or settlements, etc. Or some may just find it easier to have an actual detailed guide along their borders, rather than mapping something out in the middle of an empty space, with no real idea of what's going to be surrounding you.

I mean, I could be wrong, but I think instead of being unpopular, they actually provide more choices for different people's preferences. :)

jbgibson
12-26-2013, 04:29 AM
Issue I would see with hexes is just that folks are more likely to want to make nice traditional rectangular map sheets. If one was claiming territory for a game, hexes would work really well - I've been part of such a scheme. The first incarnation of the geofiction world of Aurora had a claim map in hexes, like so:
59932

That way of allocating space (take one, two, or three hexes) led to nation boundaries that were not *too* blatantly geometric - many of us fudged irregular borders into place to suit our individual ideas of what was realistic. The raw political map wound up like
59933

and individual nations became lumpy or greatly distorted hex-based... things. From
59934

to
59935

Now, our focus was individual nations, but even then typical national maps showed neighboring territory, if at a reduced fidelity or level of detail. How's that bear on a CWBP? Well, political units are one of the easiest conceptualized views of a world, and one of the most typically mapped. The first CWBP with its nice rectangular claim scheme was actually a lot like a modern atlas - just one complied from many disparate cartographers. If our simple goal is to build a fun fictional world, and make oodles of fun maps all the while, divvying up the world in mappable units is sensible. Plenty of regional maps show whatever nations happen to be within the defined sheet borders. Who's to say that's not the standard way of mapping on Cwmbip?

I find it invigorating to have a set of border constraints to match, but that's just me. I know some folks don't want their vision infringed upon. Well, sorry - it's a COOPERATIVE world, eh? :-) Maybe that makes me a filler-in-of-buffer-zones....

No matter what, as a CWBP participant I would not want to map an isolated nation with zero info shown on its neighbors - as though it were an island in the void (though again - maybe that's just how Cwmbippian cartographers roll <shrug> ). I probably wouldn't mind imagining some random rectangular chunk of the world as a regional map... but I would want to negotiate with neighbor squareholders as to what their subject matter would be like near my sheet edges. The buffer zone schemes don't leave very mappable slivers of world to work with later.

A later incarnation of Aurora began with scads of randomly-shaped territories, somewhat mimicking the way a real world set of political units might wind up after milennia of additions, subtractions, conquests, and falls of civilizations. We were free to imagine some of the wiggly borders as rivers, others as ridgetops, and still others as the random-looking land grant that was Duchess Portobelo's dowry. Mapping that still left us with neighbor-bits that initially weren't defined. Frustrating. In an ideal world, one might tackle that as an iterative process... but we invest so much time in our maps, it seems an insurmountable task to years later tweak things to match what turned out to be an Arabesque realm off to the east, not undifferentiated bare rock. Putting in placeholder labels at the edges is just... gauche. "Nation Thirty-Four" indeed. Hmph.

I like the thought of semirigid rectangles laid edge to edge, with initial claimants having carte :-) blanche control, and latecomers needing to figure out how to create a plausible match. Maybe islands each become one territory, regardless of whether they would fit a grid. If you assume the result after years of drawing is an atlas of Cwmbip, with each sheet's cartographer flat-out not *knowing* enough about neighboring lands, then like somebody else said - the edge matching becomes less important.

Alas - I ramble. Enough.

Falconius
12-26-2013, 05:16 AM
If someone could map the hexes (with whatever other elements needed) to a globe they could all be roughly the same size though. Squares would be pretty warped, triangles the easiest but also pretty warped. Maybe even using blender somehow to get us a wireframe. I don't know, it's way beyond me. Which is why I'm still an advocate for hand drawn divisions rather than an arranged grid.

Issue I would see with hexes is just that folks are more likely to want to make nice traditional rectangular map sheets.To me that seems to be an advantage as people would define their own edges of the maps within the hex instead of running right up to the edge. Those that fill in the follow up maps could then run their maps from a previous map edge.

Ghostman
12-26-2013, 06:38 AM
If someone could map the hexes (with whatever other elements needed) to a globe they could all be roughly the same size though. Squares would be pretty warped, triangles the easiest but also pretty warped.
Is that actually possible? Hexes laid edge to edge will result in a flat plane, not the surface of a sphere, so I don't see how they could be used to map a globe without getting smaller and smaller toward the poles. They'll also inevitably be somewhat warped in shape but not nearly as badly as rectangles.

To truly have similar-sized tiles (of any shape) with minimal distortion when mapped on a globe we'd have to base the grid on a spherical polyhedron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_polyhedron).

Falconius
12-26-2013, 07:22 AM
It is not possible really with only hexes, but all the areas would be roughly the same size. When the mesh will be as fine as required for this purpose it becomes silly complicated. I think squares or hand drawn is what we should go with.

Ghostman
12-26-2013, 03:58 PM
An unelegant (and potentially labor-intensive) solution to the tile size issue could be to first generate a dense grid, then manually merge some of the tiles together to create larger tiles. Depending on the shape of the grid this could result in some oddly-shaped tiles, but aesthetic qualities aside that shouldn't cause any problems.

Another thing to consider is that if we're going to use the Mercator projection, then the size of mapped areas will vary greatly by latitude in any case.

I found this handy little program called DrawHexGrid (http://cryhavocgames.net/Tutorials_Utilities.htm) that can be used to generate numbered hex grids of various configurations. Here's an example grid of 100x50 hexes:
59942
Sadly it doesn't output vector files so resizing the grid to the dimensions of the map might be tricky.

Azelor
12-26-2013, 04:42 PM
jbgibson: I think it will be necessary for mappers to collaborate since as you said, nations could stretch across more than one hexes and political borders do not match hex borders
And no I don’t think a country is a island floating in the void, it has neibors and sometimes will share some similarities (in names for example) like the Latin countries or the Germans one.

It's not that hard to create an hex grid in illustrator. Just a test but it's a bad projection for that.

59945

Ghostman
12-26-2013, 05:46 PM
An idea just occurred to me, that is so simple that I'm kind of embarrassed I didn't think of it sooner. There's really no need to have different sized tiles at different latitudes, because the issue of size distortion is not about tile size, it's all about the size of the claimed plots.

Solution: simply vary the maximum number of tiles a mapper is allowed to claim for their plot! For example, we could divide the globe into 5 belts (1 equatorial belt, 2 subpolar belts, and 2 intermediary belts) like so:

59946

Then just state some rules for the mappers, eg:

A claimed plot on the equatorial belt may contain up to 5 tiles.
A claimed plot on an intermediary belt may contain up to 10 tiles.
A claimed plot on a subpolar belt may contain up to 20 tiles.
For plots that would span across two belts, default to the lower maximum number of tiles.


This should work just as well with either hexes or rectangular grids.

Falconius
12-26-2013, 05:51 PM
I don't see why it is necessary for people to collaborate unless they want to, in which case I see nothing preventing them from doing so. That is the whole purpose of the proposals we have here, to allow people greater freedom in how they approach the project. Mapping right up to the edges, mapping without buffers, and the idea that they have to specifically match the next map over all place constraints on what is happening. It will, if people border while neither map is complete it means that they have expectations and timings they have to meet. It may easily force people who would rather not have to deal with that to take it on simply to get a piece of land they want to map. For no good reason that I can discern, since we can take care of setting up the freedom required to avoid it right now.

Falconius
12-26-2013, 05:52 PM
That is a really clever solution Ghostman.

Azelor
12-26-2013, 06:32 PM
No I think it's necessary for people to collaborate since it a community project and not a patchwork of individual projects glued together. I am not talking about the style, they can be different. But major map elements such as mountains and names should have some consistency to avoid a mountain range ending abruptly in a 90 degree angle.

I don't understand what the problem is with distortion. If we mainly use an equirectangular projection, all tiles are of an equal size on the map. So it is fair for everyone. Of course, it's not an equal size in reality but why is that a problem ?

Falconius
12-26-2013, 06:57 PM
Not really a problem, I'd just rather a more realistic representation of size equality between the maps. Also since Ghostmans suggestion is so clever I'm dying to use it now :).

I'm not suggesting that major map elements would be left out. We will have a rough topographic map from which people will doubtless deviate with artistic license but will still maintain a certain regularity, so no sudden unexpected 90 degree turns. And we will also work out other main concerns for the final world map such as rivers, temperatures, precipitation, etc. People will easily be able to work from there without ruining consistency over the regions. Same with the setting as per your suggestion in the other thread. But I don't think such close collaboration should be such a forced necessity of the project and I don't think it will achieve as good of developments as we would get with more freedom.

I am entirely uninclined to view the community project as such a restrictive and forced process. We will probably always be in disagreement about this though, but c'est la vie. I am definitely approaching it more as a sewing group would a patchwork quilt. Everyone doing their own little thing and then sewing it together into one great and glorious whole. I believe this will result in more variety and a more interesting world filled with more opportunity than otherwise would be available.

Azelor
12-27-2013, 12:12 AM
I guess I just misunderstood your last message(s).

Azelor
12-27-2013, 01:01 AM
Suggestion: let's list some of the pros & cons of the various choices. Example - 1&5 minimize tropics, 2/3/6 have a moderate amount, and 4 has the most.

If divided into squares, 4 probably has the most that are landlocked, followed by 1,2,& 5, with 3 & six maybe more coastal bits. Having participated in several geofiction build-your-own nation games, I can say people are drawn to coasts - it's easier to envision connections & conflict. With landlocked territory one is really stuck with however your neighbors develop. Not to say interior spaces are uninteresting - if you want a silk road across vast desert expanses, skinny isthmuses won't be prospects.

In that vein, 2/3/6 seem to have the most semi-protected waters to become cradles of early shipborne transport, followed by the others. That's a maybe, depending on currents and wind patterns.

1/3/5 have some pretty isolated lands, depending on how proficient our explorers and colonists are (thinking flora & fauna as well as people). That would give us better rationale for wildly different races, critters, ecosystems.

Shall we say we're somewhere between sword age and cannons, maybe with great differences in development level? That doesn't affect the terrain, but it'll have bearing on the manmade features.

As far as inducement for voting, how about if those who vote - for anything! - get a say in the pool of continent & ocean names? Best if we have several to choose from for each, but to stick possibilities in the pool could be a perk. Sure, the myriad cultures on a fantasy world will have a myriad+1 names, in local tongues, but for *our* purposes it's a bummer to be referring to "landmass 3" and "ocean F". Common names won't tie one down - one's map doesn't even have to use latin script! :-).

A flaw in thinking, IMHO, when building a cooperative array of nations, is that many, many folk want their territory to be the best and brightest. That way lies the Lake Woebegon effect, where everybody is above average. We are pursuing this mostly to make maps, not so much to role play the nations and peoples, but acknowledgement up front that *nobody* is top dog should help. We are partly mitigating that tendency by chopping area up geometrically instead of by political boundaries, but the competitive mindset is grating to other participants. Not to say one's obviously nautical territory doesn't have extensive fleets, and considerable trade - just that I don't get to say that stretch over there outside my box is all vassal states to the Mighty My Own Empire.

What's Really Fun is the negotiation & compromise to get edges to match up.

What are some other deciding characteristics of the worldmap choices?

Good idea jbgibson !
So hereís what I think

1,2 : have no land at the poles
4,5 : have some
3,6 : have a lot
land at the poles are great but not that interesting and get distorted with this projection
...

1:
Pro: The general topography looks good and is diverse
The coast is detailed and there are also quite a lot of bays and peninsulas which I think are good to add flavour to the map.

Con: No ocean texture, the colors are a bit off. But this can be changed.
The relief seems a little blurry at some places.
Not sure I like the continent placement but it can be changed.

Other: Have some islands, a couple of continents that are not all linked but it's rather easy to travel by boat. There are a few straits, so trading can be controlled by a few countries.

2:
Pro: Have a lot of islands often packed.
The general texture looks good, especially when looking at the rivers.

Con: Coastlines could be more random.
I think the ocean texture should be more subtle and the ocean ridge too.
I would prefer a more random land placement or more space between continents.
The mountains style is ok but their placement is not.

3:
Pro: I really like the land shapes, there is quite a lot of variety. It has enclosed sea like the Mediterranean, archipelago and large continent.

Con: The map quality suggests it was stretched.
The land texture is too blurry and I think the different ocean colours should blend more.
The relief is not clear.
The coast could have more details.


4:
Pro: The color palette is really great, the texture too.

Con: maybe it was the intention but this does not look like a map.
The land shape offer possibilities but it's still too random.

5: it's mostly the same thing as 1, except that some islands are more stretched...
But I prefer the first one.

6:
Pros: Really good render, it looks like a satellite picture.
Nice topography.
The two eastern continents are interesting

Con: Some parts look stretched (western islands and the Poles) and I think it looks odd.
And I canít say why but I donít really like the eastern part, maybe thatís just me.
Also I think the land placement should look more random.
__________________________________________________ ___________________________


To sum up:
I think itís important to have long coastlines but also landlocked lands. A mix of both is ideal, since civilisation develop along the coasts generally. Landlocked places are often remote as you said. Perfect for desert, mountains, high plateaus, monster horde, lost civilization... adventure. So, a combination of islands, small continent but also bigger one would be good.

And the coast should be interesting with details of different size such as bay and peninsulas to make the mapping more interesting (just like the Chesapeake Bay for example)

__________________________________________________ ____________________________



And about the Lake Woebegon effect, it's usually not a problem for me. Most of the good things have some downside and the more you develop a country, more possible weaknesses appear. This is especially true for large countries like Empires. Itís easy to put them into trouble.

Falconius
12-27-2013, 05:41 AM
We should also solicit more entries.

So, anyone here who is willing to try, should take a shot and submit their worlds to this thread so we can add them to the new poll that we will put up some time in the not too distant future.

By the way I don't like the eastern part either, most of it doesn't work. I wanted to have a very large landmass though, and some landlocked waters. Now that there is time I'll probably work on it some more and resubmit it.

Edit: I suggest that we make a new deadline for new proposals (obviously including most of the older ones except number five which I hate and is mine to withdraw), say Jan 18th and then put up a new poll lasting two to three weeks, to like Feb 8th. Or maybe we should stick to rounder dates like the beginning and ends of months. Maybe new proposals till Jan 5, and then a new poll lasting to the end of the month or basically Feb 1st.

Azelor
12-27-2013, 01:03 PM
I'm not sure that putting deadlines is a good thing in our case. We should wait to have enough entries before voting.

Falconius
12-28-2013, 08:41 PM
Ok, lets hope people put some new ones up. I am worried of course that we won't progress without a little definitiveness though.

Tomalak
12-29-2013, 12:59 AM
I am one of those that has not spoken up because of inability to commit time. Also, because I only intermittently check the guild )for the aforementioned time). Reading through this thread, I see a clear request for the opinions of people like myself, so here you go;

1) I would love to be involved in this project, and I believe the best idea for you is to go forward with the people you have, and let people join or leave along the way. It's going to happen anyway, and if you make it clear that is not only okay, but an intended part of the project, the whole thing becomes so much more approachable.

2) I like option #6 (from this (http://www.cartographersguild.com/cooperative-worldbuilding-project/25298-cwbp-2-deciding-map-2.html#post230427) post) for the map best, for the outlines. However, it looks like some of the climate effects are already included. For me personally, I like realistic climate areas in my maps (because I am a geography student, so that's sorta my thing). So, I like the landforms alot, but I'd like to adjust the climates to suit realistic patterns (presuming the world is a sphere spinning in a void travelling an elliptical orbit around a distant heat-producing body - if not, then, whatevs). There is, however, alot of land. Can the amount of space between landmasses be increased a bit, while you're adjusting the eastern landmass? Also, alot of the way weather works on Earth is driven by the location and relationship of the landmasses/oceans; if we flip the map 180į, weather patterns will be easier to predict.

3) I personally think the first suggested method (http://www.cartographersguild.com/cooperative-worldbuilding-project/25298-cwbp-2-deciding-map-4.html#post232072) for dividing up the map is the wisest, because it is so simple and direct. As you will have people joining the project late, you want the process to be as smooth and intuitive - which I believe this method does well.

Also, I would be up for collaborating on a single area, if another user wished. I love doing worldbuilding, but am not yet all that good at making pretty maps.

jbgibson
12-29-2013, 02:55 AM
Tomalak spoke a key thought - that not only will folks join, but also folks will inevitably leave. They'll leave after they finish their bit, or amid a creative flurry, or barely started. That's behavior not to bemoan, but to build the enterprise around. So whatever our structure is, it has to fly well with a variety of participation levels and durations.

Not apropos of any of the other discussions, but aside, I'd suggest we encourage individual maps be done in public, in WIP threads, and that 'license' be granted for others to pick up where one left off, if one leaves the project.

Heh - that could be fun on purpose -- several of us work up a quadrangle to half done, then everybody trades with the cartographer on their right :-).

Azelor
12-31-2013, 01:00 PM
You are right Tomalak, we should keep it simple while having fun and trying to make it look good.

One thing though, map 6 don't show climates, it's more about the topography.



Not apropos of any of the other discussions, but aside, I'd suggest we encourage individual maps be done in public, in WIP threads, and that 'license' be granted for others to pick up where one left off, if one leaves the project.


I was thinking the same thing.

Falconius
12-31-2013, 05:09 PM
I was naively assuming that people would have WIP's, but being explicit that it is preferable doesn't hurt. Perhaps if one leaves a plot they are working on they can just post so and somebody may take off from where they started. If a long time passes on one of these abandoned WIP's with no activity at all it may be prudent to just release the plot entirely.

The biggest interests in stalled or abandoned plots is likely to be from bordering mappers if there are any.

Tomalak
01-01-2014, 09:23 PM
One thing though, map 6 don't show climates, it's more about the topography.

I had taken the darker and lighter areas to be indicative of rainfall. They do not seem to indicate anything else, but are placed artistically, rather than scientifically


By the way I don't like the eastern part either, most of it doesn't work. I wanted to have a very large landmass though, and some landlocked waters. Now that there is time I'll probably work on it some more and resubmit it.

I kind of like the eastern landmass, although the area from the polar peninsula east to the second large east-ward sticking protrusion does have an awkward shape to the coastline. I look forward to seeing the next edition!


What do people think about having someone (I volunteer, but am not insisting if someone else wants to) draw up a global weather pattern, as a guideline to local mapmakers?

gspRooster
01-24-2014, 01:54 AM
Are we locked in on those entries or is it possible to get a few more world map themes up for potential voting?

Falconius
01-24-2014, 02:25 AM
We are seeking more entries for the next vote.

gspRooster
01-24-2014, 02:45 AM
I might be able to come up with something. Need more input from the other thread regarding genre before I put pencil to paper though.

Falconius
01-24-2014, 04:41 AM
While I certainly belive the setting would have some influence on the over all map, I think basic elements can easily be worked out before hand. I mean worlds are going to form in generally the same pattern given similar influences, the question arises just what other influences the setting is going to contribute.

I'll also say that the most of what I'm looking for in a world map is things that I'd think are interesting to map, regardless of how realistic they are. Those aren't so easy to come up with just as a matter of course. So working on them early may not be amiss. Also world maps can easily be a collaborative sort of effort, there is no reason not to take the best elements form several map or taking someone else's map and editing it as Azelor is doing with mine now. As long as the originator doesn't mind that is.

gspRooster
01-24-2014, 06:58 PM
You're absolutely correct. The basic elements can easily be worked out before hand. It's just part of my own personal process. I need to visualize the world in it's entirety. The setting, genre, culture, and physical geography all sort of unfold for me at once.

Azelor
01-25-2014, 02:31 AM
While I certainly belive the setting would have some influence on the over all map, I think basic elements can easily be worked out before hand. I mean worlds are going to form in generally the same pattern given similar influences, the question arises just what other influences the setting is going to contribute.

I'll also say that the most of what I'm looking for in a world map is things that I'd think are interesting to map, regardless of how realistic they are. Those aren't so easy to come up with just as a matter of course. So working on them early may not be amiss. Also world maps can easily be a collaborative sort of effort, there is no reason not to take the best elements form several map or taking someone else's map and editing it as Azelor is doing with mine now. As long as the originator doesn't mind that is.

Did not had the time to open it yet, i'll try tomorrow (or later today since it's 1 AM here)

And your where right, we need some file sharing app if multiple members wants to work on the same project or exchange files.


Rooster: you are right about that. It's always good to have a clear overview.

gspRooster
01-25-2014, 01:54 PM
Anybody use digital dropbox? Thats good for file sharing.

gspRooster
01-25-2014, 02:28 PM
Some very basic, done in 30 seconds concepts. Black outlines land, red lines are tectonic mountain ranges. Red rings are impact craters.

http://i.imgur.com/8sNIg21.jpg (http://imgur.com/8sNIg21)


http://i.imgur.com/Ky3l5hk.jpg (http://imgur.com/Ky3l5hk)


http://i.imgur.com/kVRGzYk.jpg (http://imgur.com/kVRGzYk)


http://i.imgur.com/apNljk3.jpg (http://imgur.com/apNljk3)

Falconius
01-26-2014, 03:53 AM
I copied this from the Genre and Setting (http://www.cartographersguild.com/cooperative-worldbuilding-project/25339-cwbp-2-determining-genre-era.html) thread since I wanted to discuss the map components.




Aside from that we still need a world map. I see 2 ways to achieve this.

1: everyone submit a map and we choose the best.

or 2: we begin to wonder what we would like the map to look like and we build it together. Or one of us build/modify it and wait for approval.
At the beginning, I wanted to do #2 but too few people seemed interested at the time so I made a contest. It did not really work that well in my opinion. I'm sure 2 would be better. I think someone told me he would like a pangea world. Well that is the kind of suggestion that could start a discussion. So, what kind of world do we want? Any particular geographic elements? We don't need to have the whole world right on the beginning; we can just start with one continent. But the general layout of the world should be completed before mapping regional areas.


The other thing we discussed was dividing the map for regional mapping. Squared or odd shaped? With or without buffer zones?
Depending on how Viewingdale work (a mapping software), buffer zones might be unnecessary if it's easy to update. I'll ask Redrobes about that.


How to create the world:
1: everyone take some lands and decide what's on it. It end up more a patchwork than a credible world

2: decide collectively, vaguely what's on the land: approximate countries boundaries, or cultural boundaries, important cities. The idea is to make a credible fictional world that is interesting to read about or playing in a RPG.


ps: I know that my point of view is totally biased

First off I am totally opposed to a Pangaea world. I can't imagine it offering a great deal of interesting mapping ideas. Interesting mapping points is what I'm really looking for, this is a fantasy setting in a fantasy world, there is no need to be timid and conservative with the map. Realism should not necessarily be our main concern regarding land forms.

Regarding the World map, I'm happy with editing elements into a map as suggested in two, I mangled my attempt to work on Azelor's map in doing so but it's worth the attempts. Personally I feel like having the whole world map at least in overview is important to starting off. Specifics should be left open for now.

My views on the division are pretty clear. Land modified zones with good buffers. Tying into the next point...

I think the diversity of a world is best served by having a supposed patchwork. Even in this earth I can't imagine mapping cultural boundaries very definitively. I think rather if we have our setting overview and general ideas of what is in the area that is more than enough to run with. Collective decisions regarding these things would lead to an unnecessary homogeneity, and I feel would lead to exactly the opposite of a world that is interesting to read about or play in. It would be far less credible I think than having the greater diversity and creativity a more open plan would allow.

Perhaps if number 2 was done on a more regional scale somehow it would work, but on a world scale I don't think so. Another reason I don't like this is because I want us to be mapping and developing all over the place, not just one region or continent at a time, and doing this while also trying to stick to number 2 is not conducive to one another.

octopod
01-26-2014, 05:09 PM
So, if not a Pangaea, what about a pre-Pangaea with high sea levels, like this Silurian map (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Blakey_430moll.jpg)? Lots of island chains, warm shallow oceans with coral reefs, swamps -- kind of an Earthsea (http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m10nw4aUIT1qa2sp9o1_1280.jpg) feel, possibly.

gspRooster
01-26-2014, 05:16 PM
I could go with Falconius's traditional multi-continent approach.

rgcalsaverini
01-26-2014, 05:29 PM
I could go with Falconius's traditional multi-continent approach.

I agree, I think it gives us more options. We did have many separated landmasses on the silurian period, I don't quite see your point @octopod.

octopod
01-26-2014, 07:59 PM
@rgcalsaverini: Well, I was suggesting a world like that as a possible alternative to the "multi-continents", modern-Earth-like world or the Pangaea world that were being discussed above, because I thought it might be interesting. The big difference between this and the one Falconius suggested is that there is more underwater continental shelf than on the modern Earth (and therefore more tropical oceans like that of the present-day central Indo-Pacific), more island chains, and fewer large land masses.

What I'm trying to get at is, I suppose, this: is there anything established about the world already? That is, assuming it's roughly Earth-like: how big is it, what is the climate like (i.e. are there ice caps), what percentage of the surface is water? There are some basic things like that which should probably be agreed upon collectively, even if we're doing all the individual geography by claiming an area and talking to our immediate neighbours.

Very glad to see this going! I was sad when the CWBP1 stagnated and died.

Falconius
01-27-2014, 03:17 PM
Carried over from the Genre and setting thread: (http://www.cartographersguild.com/cooperative-worldbuilding-project/25339-cwbp-2-determining-genre-era-6.html#post234957)
B) Physical Characteristics
B.1 Basic world shape: Pangea? Craters?
B.2 Physics/Astrophysics: Is the world round? Does it spin? Have seasons? How many moons? Etc

C) Technical Details
C.1 Mapping approach: Who can map? How are we going to assign maps?
C.2 World division: How will we divide the world for mapping?
B 1. Basic Shape
No to Pangaea. I want multi-continental with plenty of interesting mapping points and lots of ocean space and plenty of islands (that don't have to appear on the main world map for sake of ease). And also one large continent for fun. This planet has no requirement to be Earth size, I'd be happy to go bigger with the assumption that even if it's not realistic it still has similar characteristics. I'd assume a bigger planet would work well with Azelors double star desire which I'm also happy to go with. Double Stars and double moons. (or two planets in orbiting each other and in a common orbit around the stars? lets make it weirds). I'm happy with anything weird going on in the sky really.

Ghostmans locus points are definitely in my vision of this world.

C 1. Anyone can map if they want?... We don't assign plots, people ask for them and if they aren't taken already they get to use them.
C 2. This is dealt with extensively in this thread and post 39 is kind of the culmination of my proposal (http://www.cartographersguild.com/cooperative-worldbuilding-project/25298-cwbp-2-deciding-map-4.html#post232072), though nothing has been decided and the matter dropped. I prefer to do the irregular plots because I think it's more conducive to both mapping and world building.

Azelor
01-29-2014, 12:45 PM
In my idea, the second star would be so far that it would have no gravity impact on the planet.

Scoopz
02-18-2014, 01:36 PM
I support Falconius' proposal, and I made a potential plot-map of the world with the highest votes:

61534
It's rough, but you get the idea.

The problem with squares or hexes, is that there are tidbits of land that are left out or in a different space entirely. Sure you can claim more than one spot, but then that's kind of a pain in the ass. If you can just choose a region, with reasonable borders, it might make the mapping process a little easier. That's my opinion though.

I mainly changed the grid where small=>medium islands were to make it easier, also where there were interesting coastal features. As, presumably, you'd want them to be in one map instead of several. I tried not to touch the land, but there are definitely parts that might benefit from irregular plots.

I think part of the issue is the map itself. There's a lot of long, snaky islands, which cover a lot of terrain, but ultimately might be easier mapped as a whole. What do you guys think?

Ghostman
02-18-2014, 01:47 PM
I still think we should go with little hexes and let each mapper pick a number of them for his/her plot, rather than trying to guess in advance the shape and extent of the plots.

Scoopz
02-18-2014, 01:49 PM
Do we have a full hex map of the world in this thread?

Falconius
02-18-2014, 02:28 PM
There is a new submission thread for map proposals here (http://www.cartographersguild.com/cooperative-worldbuilding-project/26048-cwbp-2-call-world-map-entries.html#post235827) (discussion should be kept to this thread though), so we don't know what the maps going to be yet. I'm completely uninterested in mapping the entire world top down (mapping as a whole). I just want the basics laid in so that cartographers can go at it as they wish. Mapping as a whole is only interesting on a solo project and can be useful in a directed group project (ie for a game development team with a specific plan).

Azelor
02-18-2014, 07:45 PM
We could do just what GSPRooster suggested and ''build'' a map instead of trying to make one appear out of nowhere.

Falconius
02-18-2014, 08:08 PM
I don't really want to do that as a collective, I'd rather just have full maps to choose from for our world map. If one of them happened to be made that way great, otherwise also great.

Edit: We can also do half of a world map so to speak and leave the other half to a later date, but I'm not so much a fan of such a plan.