Square Continents........

[texico]

I've noticed on the PS Wiki that some artwork for Esamir is up, including its map.


I've bitched on here before about Indar's unrealistic shape but I figured it would just be a one-off. Well I've seen Esamir now and it's virtually the same thing (marginally better).

As a general rule of thumb, if you can can roughly draw a square around a large landmass then it looks tacky and amateurish.

This is seriously poor form. The game's graphics are mesmerizing, beyond anything I was expecting. Designing continents should be bread and butter. I figure their shape is designed with gameplay in mind, but that's no reason for the continent to not look exotic.

It feels nit-picky moaning about this, but the continent's design is something so easy to get right at the beginning and yet not even remotely feasible to change drastically once it's released, so the game's stuck with square continents that don't look aesthetic at all.

[RedKnights]

I really must agree, the maps that they have right now really have no character, which is quite poor form... It's something about increasing playable area size, which is silly.

i'd much rather have less land and have the land look interesting, like right now i'm playing in this giant SQUARE.

While we're on it, the edges of the map still bother me, like i'm artificially fenced into a battle-box.

[DarkMesa]

I will admit, these are dissapointingly square.

[CrankyTRex]

Yeah not a terribly big fan of the continent design, especially how it looks blatantly carved out for the three factions, as opposed to a natural landmass that each faction has grabbed a chunk of.

At least for Indar it would help if they let let the foliage part creep up around and past the crater to the upper right corner so that it doesn't look like it's confined to one littler corner. Maybe throw in a little river for it to follow.

[thegreekboy]

Agreed. Contininets needs to be more creatively designed

[psijaka]

Agree withg the OP. Square is obviously the most efficient design, but I'm sure that, with a bit of imagination, the continents could be made more realistic at the expense of the loss of say 20 hexagons.

As it is, it looks as if we could be playing on a Chess or Go board.

[Figment]

I'd say the south western warpgate team has the biggest advantage because the north eastern team warpgate has to overcome the physical barrier of two canyons to reach their mean distance line.

The north western team, is literally cornered and therefore seems pretty screwed: it has the least backland and expansion options and is always being doubleteamed with constant pressure on, where the other two empires may settle for a status quo along the canyon division (particularly if the southern team has control of the south eastern 'island'). Only reason they'll survive is because the other two teams will eventually clash on the main pink terrain. The only chance they have to expand up to the high ground ridge along the route eventually, is if the clash in the south east 'island' is too troop consuming. That area however seems more like outfit skirmish terrain.

Lots of choke areas along the division lines pretty much ensure a stalemate. Had the north eastern warpgate been a bit further south, I think the division would have been better.

[Bags]

They said square = most gameplay.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Bags

They said square = most gameplay.

Not exactly, they said squarish continent == most surface area to fight over in a square domain.

[brighthand]

these issues wouldn't exists if they did away with the footholds all together, and brought in something more "organic" and "sancy." Needless to say, it is NOT hip to be a square.

[VaderShake]

Variation would be nice, but if you tilt your head to the side the square becomes a diamond shape.....

[AThreatToYou]

The reason why it's a square
The continent is broken up into coordinates, and between each coordinate terrain is formed. Kind of like this
MAP:
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
So in order to make the most efficient use of the available space, the map is built almost fully in this square grid. (c=impassable canyon)
c c c c c c c c c c
c. . . . .c. .w. . .c
c. .b. . .c.c. .o. .c
c. . .c.c. .c. .c.c.c
c. .b. . . . .c.b. .c
c. . . o . .c. .o. .c
c.w. . . .c. . . .w.c
c c c c c c c c c c
In order to create a more "natural" design with 3 footholds, grid space and thus memory would be wasted, reducing the amount of players that can be fit into this space.
. . . . .c.c. . . .
. . .c.c.w.c. . . .
. .c. . . . . .c. .
. .c. . . . . .c. .
.c.w. . . .c.c. . .
.c.c. . . .c. . . .
. .c. . . . .c. . .
. .c. . . . . .c. .
. .c. . . . . c . .
. . .c. .w. .c. . .
. . .c. . .c. . . .
. . . .c.c. . . . .

So, yet another sacrifice that was made in order to fit 2k players on a cont.

[bjorntju1]

I remember this screen that was accidentially showed on an stream:

So who knows... And I also agree that they need to add variety on the shape of the maps.

[Hamma]

They are square to get the most use of space. Does it suck? Somewhat, I liked the varied continents in PS1. But I prefer the most gamespace possible.

[PoisonTaco]

Don't care about realism. Want more balanced gameplay. Triangle continent anyone?