Remixed Master Sets

[caps]

Here is my first attempt at a map using Crumland Outpost. Next I need to try Feldspar Dungeon.

[Chill]

I'm excited about this and I want to share some unqualified ideas as a person who has designed zero maps!

To me it seems like the great value will be in combining tiles in new and different ways. In order to make visually distinct maps, I think we will usually want to gather tiles of a kind together (such as all the sand or all the trees). But then regroup them in different ways to make maps that look different. I think GameBear's 3-map set is a great example.

Originally Posted by GameBear

By doing just that, he's created three unique fresh-looking maps.
- A dungeon map that features sand paired with asphalt!
- An interesting mostly-road map with a nice color theme!
- A swamp map that features grass and rock without sand, and trees without road!

If others made some maps using those same three groupings of tiles, I think they also would be cool and interesting and different from those we're used to. But I also think they would not look very different from each other. We might find that all of the [swamp+rock+grass+trees] maps (though they may play very differently) look pretty samey in the way that 1ROTV+1RTTFF maps look samey now. You can definitely get a good variety of maps, but you get a lot more by combining tiles in different ways.

Of course standard sets based on the boxes the tiles originally came in is helpful and necessary if you want other people to build and play on your map. I think a slightly different kind of standards might be more useful!

I humbly propose components:

We could define standard components of each set. I think much of the time we might want to split sets in basically the same way but recombine them in different ways. For example:

[Expansion sets]
- RttFF: One component for all of the road tiles, and one component for all of the trees.
- Tundra: Three components for glaciers, snow, and ice.
- Fortress: (I think we actually don't want to separate the wall walk tiles from the pillars because when you have that many obstacles you want road to get around them) In my view the biggest gain would be to take the ladders as a component so they could be used to assist movement on a map without road / wall walks. Not sure about battlements.
- Jungle: I don't see much to be gained by splitting this set.
- Lava: I don't see much to be gained by splitting this set.

[Master sets]
- RotV: This set is really large, and I think we could do some cool things by splitting it in half, into a grass+rock component and a grass+sand component. Each half is more hexes than BftU and fewer than SotM.
- Marvel: One component for concrete (and the ruin), and one for asphalt. We could have a tiny third component for the grass tiles or include them with the asphalt since it has fewer hexes.
- SotM: Swamp component, sand component, rock/grass component.
- BftU: Dungeon component, sand component, rock/grass component.

I think something like this would let us make visually distinct maps in an interoperable way. That said, even just splitting a few sets like this creates many new possible combos, really maybe too many. And I think contests with prescribed sets will be very useful to that end.

What do you all think?

[caps]

Originally Posted by Chill

I'm excited about this and I want to share some unqualified ideas as a person who has designed zero maps!

To me it seems like the great value will be in combining tiles in new and different ways. In order to make visually distinct maps, I think we will usually want to gather tiles of a kind together (such as all the sand or all the trees). But then regroup them in different ways to make maps that look different. I think GameBear's 3-map set is a great example.



By doing just that, he's created three unique fresh-looking maps.
- A dungeon map that features sand paired with asphalt!
- An interesting mostly-road map with a nice color theme!
- A swamp map that features grass and rock without sand, and trees without road!

If others made some maps using those same three groupings of tiles, I think they also would be cool and interesting and different from those we're used to. But I also think they would not look very different from each other. We might find that all of the [swamp+rock+grass+trees] maps (though they may play very differently) look pretty samey in the way that 1ROTV+1RTTFF maps look samey now. You can definitely get a good variety of maps, but you get a lot more by combining tiles in different ways.

Of course standard sets based on the boxes the tiles originally came in is helpful and necessary if you want other people to build and play on your map. I think a slightly different kind of standards might be more useful!

I humbly propose components:

We could define standard components of each set. I think much of the time we might want to split sets in basically the same way but recombine them in different ways. For example:

[Expansion sets]
- RttFF: One component for all of the road tiles, and one component for all of the trees.
- Tundra: Three components for glaciers, snow, and ice.
- Fortress: (I think we actually don't want to separate the wall walk tiles from the pillars because when you have that many obstacles you want road to get around them) In my view the biggest gain would be to take the ladders as a component so they could be used to assist movement on a map without road / wall walks. Not sure about battlements.
- Jungle: I don't see much to be gained by splitting this set.
- Lava: I don't see much to be gained by splitting this set.

[Master sets]
- RotV: This set is really large, and I think we could do some cool things by splitting it in half, into a grass+rock component and a grass+sand component. Each half is more hexes than BftU and fewer than SotM.
- Marvel: One component for concrete (and the ruin), and one for asphalt. We could have a tiny third component for the grass tiles or include them with the asphalt since it has fewer hexes.
- SotM: Swamp component, sand component, rock/grass component.
- BftU: Dungeon component, sand component, rock/grass component.

I think something like this would let us make visually distinct maps in an interoperable way. That said, even just splitting a few sets like this creates many new possible combos, really maybe too many. And I think contests with prescribed sets will be very useful to that end.

What do you all think?

I think this approach is much more open, which I like, but it seems to me like it makes it harder for Tournament organizers to know what they can build and to fully utilize their terrain.

When it comes to master sets, I think dividing them individually doesn't give us as much freedom to create different pallettes than we get by combining multiple sets and then dividing. For instance, in the sets I've made there multiple sets with no grass tiles (and one set that is dominated by sand tiles), but if you split RotV you are almost forced to go sand+grass/rock+grass (or maybe grass/rock+sand if you are okay with one half being much bigger).

The other drawback I see with this approach is that it is more or less static. With what I've proposed we can keep rolling out new set combinations each year (or at whatever pace).

Finally, I'm not actually that concerned with the fact that the maps using a given set will have a common color pallette. Map designers are pretty creative and can make distinct maps within those pallettes. They also have the option of adding additional terrain expansions (or even cross-combining with another mixed set) to spice things up and as I said above I would plan on rolling out new sets over time.

Those are more or less my thoughts, but I'd like to know what others think as well.

[Chill]

Thank you for your input @caps !

Originally Posted by caps

When it comes to master sets, I think dividing them individually doesn't give us as much freedom to create different pallettes than we get by combining multiple sets and then dividing. For instance, in the sets I've made there multiple sets with no grass tiles (and one set that is dominated by sand tiles), but if you split RotV you are almost forced to go sand+grass/rock+grass (or maybe grass/rock+sand if you are okay with one half being much bigger).

I think I understand what you're saying, but I think this is not a fair comparison. I think RotV just has a ton of grass and you're comparing it with sets made without RotV.

Here's how you could use my proposed components to make two sets in the spirit of your Feldspar Dungeon and Ruins of Ghostlight Fen:

Using SotM, BftU, FotA

Set A

dungeon 1-hex	2
dungeon 2-hex	2
dungeon 24-hex	2
dungeon 3-hex	2
dungeon 7-hex	3
water tiles	12
rock 7-hex	3
rock 3-hex	2
rock 2-hex	1
grass 3-hex	1
grass 2-hex	1
grass 1-hex	1
sand 1-hex	2
sand 2-hex	2
sand 3-hex	2
sand 7-hex	8
wall-walk 1-hex	9
wall-walk 7-hex	1
wall-walk 9-hex	1
wall corner	10
wall end	4
wall straight	7
battlement	50

Set B

swamp 1-hex	2
swamp 2-hex	2
swamp 24-hex	2
swamp 3-hex	2
swamp 7-hex	10
swamp water	34
water tiles	8
hive	1
shadow tiles	8
outcrop 1-hex	3
outcrop 3-hex	1
rock 1-hex	1
rock 2-hex	1
rock 3-hex	1
rock 7-hex	1
grass 1-hex	1
grass 2-hex	1
ladder	22

Set A is comprised of:

• Dungeon tiles (and water) from BftU
• Rock and grass tiles from BftU
• Sand tiles from BftU
• Sand tiles from SotM
• Wall walks, walls, and battlements from FotA

Set B is comprised of:

• Swamp, swamp water and water tiles (and hive) from SotM
• Rock and grass tiles from SotM
• Shadow tiles and outcrops from BftU
• Ladders from FotA

I can see the case for using the shadow and outcrops separate from dungeon tiles so I'm considering them another component here.

I didn't include the tundra set because all of it was in Ruins of Ghostlight Fen. Maybe it could be considered a "suggested pairing" rather than required?

The main differences with these sets are:

• All of the swamp water tiles are in one set
• All of the wall walk tiles are in one set
• Three hexes of rock and three hexes of grass are moved from one set to the other

In my view these adjustments make the sets look more distinct from each other, and greatly improve the possibility of fitting with other future remixed sets.

If a small road is still desired, I would add the road component of RttFF and bury or scatter the road tiles you don't want to use.

And of course I did also ruin the sets by putting grass in both. Set B has the three hexes of grass that come in SotM and I'd guess it would be easy enough to just use them as supporting tiles. If not, then I would propose the simplest (in one sense) form of components, that is, one component for each kind of tile (or obstacle) in each set. (Even then I would consider an exception for RotV because it is so big and has so much grass and water)

[caps]

Now I think I'm a little confused. Are you proposing a different set configuration (I'm open to that) or are you proposing something else entirely?

I understood you to be saying that we should split each Master Set (and some terrain expansions) and let people mix and match master set halves willy-nilly.

[Chill]

Originally Posted by caps

Now I think I'm a little confused. Are you proposing a different set configuration (I'm open to that) or are you proposing something else entirely?

I understood you to be saying that we should split each Master Set (and some terrain expansions) and let people mix and match master set halves willy-nilly.

Oh I see! Sorry for being unclear!

I see mapmakers mixing and matching components willy-nilly as a possible end goal for this project. If we have some kind of consensus on what the components are, I think it could open up the design space while still making sure multiple tournament maps can be made from a reasonable sized collection. And these new maps wouldn't be tied specifically to other maps via a specific pool.

This is probably too big of a change to promote or adopt all at once, because we would have to have quite a few good maps made this way for them to see much tournament play.

I suggest we try it out in some way with a smaller scope, maybe as a contest with a selected set or two. For example, we could focus on RttFF as two components (trees / roads). We consider each component an expansion set for the purposes of the contest, and invite entries using the components separately. Maybe each person can submit two maps, one map using each component! I could see a lot of cool designs coming out of that. Such as a tundra/road map, a forest/jungle map, and even maps with a full RttFF but another set of just trees or road tiles. And each map would fit nicely with not only the other maps submitted but also future maps made using those two components (and potentially other components, such as the sand tiles from SotM).

If this also seems too open or otherwise undesirable for most, then predetermined remixed sets (and a mapmaking contest with them) like you've proposed is probably the best path forward. In that case, I would just suggest that we at least consider the possibility of using components in the future, and make remixed sets that would be amenable to what we think those components would be. In most cases I'm guessing that would just mean keeping all of the tiles of a type from a set together. That way we can more easily consider components in the future.

Of course, I think we are both speaking from a perspective that people are free to do what they want, but that trying new things together in an organized way can lead to better outcomes for all of us. To that end I'm eager to hear more perspectives on these ideas (and of course more from you - I hope I was able to communicate a bit more clearly this time!).

I'm excited to see some fresh new maps no matter which way we go, and I'm optimistic that I'll be able to make some time soon to try my hand designing a map with a new arrangement of tiles as inspiration!

[caps]

Originally Posted by Chill

Oh I see! Sorry for being unclear!

I see mapmakers mixing and matching components willy-nilly as a possible end goal for this project. If we have some kind of consensus on what the components are, I think it could open up the design space while still making sure multiple tournament maps can be made from a reasonable sized collection. And these new maps wouldn't be tied specifically to other maps via a specific pool.

This is probably too big of a change to promote or adopt all at once, because we would have to have quite a few good maps made this way for them to see much tournament play.

I suggest we try it out in some way with a smaller scope, maybe as a contest with a selected set or two. For example, we could focus on RttFF as two components (trees / roads). We consider each component an expansion set for the purposes of the contest, and invite entries using the components separately. Maybe each person can submit two maps, one map using each component! I could see a lot of cool designs coming out of that. Such as a tundra/road map, a forest/jungle map, and even maps with a full RttFF but another set of just trees or road tiles. And each map would fit nicely with not only the other maps submitted but also future maps made using those two components (and potentially other components, such as the sand tiles from SotM).

If this also seems too open or otherwise undesirable for most, then predetermined remixed sets (and a mapmaking contest with them) like you've proposed is probably the best path forward. In that case, I would just suggest that we at least consider the possibility of using components in the future, and make remixed sets that would be amenable to what we think those components would be. In most cases I'm guessing that would just mean keeping all of the tiles of a type from a set together. That way we can more easily consider components in the future.

Of course, I think we are both speaking from a perspective that people are free to do what they want, but that trying new things together in an organized way can lead to better outcomes for all of us. To that end I'm eager to hear more perspectives on these ideas (and of course more from you - I hope I was able to communicate a bit more clearly this time!).

I'm excited to see some fresh new maps no matter which way we go, and I'm optimistic that I'll be able to make some time soon to try my hand designing a map with a new arrangement of tiles as inspiration!

I'm not persuaded that the component approach is better than the remixed sets approach, but I'm open to further people weighing in on the topic. There is probably room for both approaches in the community.

Right now I'm inclined to press on with the remixed set approach. I'd like to see some more map prototypes from folks, or at least some lurkers to come forward and say that they would make a map if there were a contest using these sets.