Iso maps in maptool

torstan · Post by **torstan** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 7:48 am

That looks truly great. I'll have a shot at that with the game I run later this week. Any chance of giving a few details of the tinkering encessary - or is it all pretty obvious?

Post by **trevor** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 2:36 pm

Vry, as always, you elevate the game

It wouldn't be very hard to draw stamps and tokens in rough order from top to bottom, but would have to put in some code branches to support the two styles of play.

So the real question is, is it worth investing time making MT do the ISO, or investing time in migrating to a formal 3d engine ?

Post by **dorpond** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 2:51 pm

To answer your question Trevor, I think we continue making Maptool 2D the best we can, with all the requested enhancements, with all the wall items, with all the bug fixes.... And when we are done with Maptool 2d, we look at changing to 3d. By then my friends will have hardware acceleration built into their laptops.

There are so many things we are waiting for with the tool we have now. I couldn't imagine starting over.

I vote that we wait until we are sick and tired with Maptool 2d. I think that is far from being soon.

Hawke · Post by **Hawke** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 3:01 pm

I think there really are two major things that go into maptool and isofriendly:

1) Making the staggered grid work (easy?)
2) Making the default z-order to have tokens further "south" be in front of ones "north"

2 is interesting because making that change could be entirely universal... just make it a check box. I can't think of a time in any game that Z-order has really mattered too much and as long as you can override with a right click it'd be pretty good.

Am I missing any requirements for basic iso stuff? Seems like it might not be that hard to drop into 1.4 while we save some 3D stuff for 2.0

Phergus · Post by **Phergus** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 3:10 pm

I'm with Dorpond.

thelevitator · Post by **thelevitator** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 3:16 pm

If we are having an informal vote, I would agree with Dorpond. I admit that the Iso-view is beautiful, but I'm sure there are a lot of GM's like me who would rather rely on description than 3d graphics to tell their stories, and mostly use MT to just keep track of everything.

I love beautiful maps and use them whenever I can. However, I've learned that I'm mostly concerned with just keeping track of the basics, and not rely on my maps to account for every little detail.

I can definitely see the advantage of Iso-maps for situations like aerial or underwater combat. It would be great to have the ability to "see" the encounter more accurately in those situations.

I think I've regressed a bit back to a more "old school" approach, where I prefer the players needing to rely on listening to descriptions and asking questions than just looking over a highly detailed map. That seems to help me encourage more role playing and puts the zoom lens where the characters want it, giving them more power to "direct" the scene.

I really do love those pretty maps though!

Post by **dorpond** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 3:28 pm

Phergus wrote:I'm with Dorpond.

Um Phergus... That better not be your hand on my arse...

thelevitator · Post by **thelevitator** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 3:34 pm

This is a little embarrassing......That was mine Dorpond.

Post by **dorpond** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 3:40 pm

thelevitator wrote: This is a little embarrassing......That was mine Dorpond.

Well, in that case...

Phergus · Post by **Phergus** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 4:12 pm

*wonders whose arse his hand is on*

thelevitator · Post by **thelevitator** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 4:26 pm

Ummm......that would be me.......

Brigand · Post by **Brigand** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 4:53 pm

Seems to me isometric would be fairly easy, given Vry's example of how the hex pathing works very well with isometric squares. You could probably use iso maps with the current hex grid without any alterations.

torstan · Post by **torstan** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 6:12 pm

Given the choice was between maptool doing iso and maptool going 3D I'd vote for iso every time.

I think the iso shows something unique that no other (currently available

) VTT can achieve and would provide a real standout wow factor for people looking at it for the first time. I think iso=eye candy and as such is worth a little bit of time.

UntoldGlory · Post by **UntoldGlory** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 6:18 pm

Tough call trev. But I'd say wrap up 1.3 and make 3d engine the starting point of 1.4. Seems to be right in line and a flagship feature for the "make maptools pretty" version.

Micco · Post by **Micco** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 6:40 pm

Wow. Tough call. Is it possible to begin an "early fork" now of what it would take to get 3d? In my line of business it is fairly typical to have one development team working on implementing/improving the current version of a product line while a separate team begins to scope out the next generation.

It would seem to make sense to me to create a small team to evaluate the 3d implementation (MapTool V2 ?) while the rest of the community continues to improve MapTool V1. It would likely take a year or more to get a usable 3d version anyway, so we <i>don't</i> want to stop improvements while the initial 3d version was completed.

I'd rather get a true 3d engine than begin work on a 2.5d engine.