# A few battlemap previews



## Morrus

Wondering what the battlemaps in  will look like?  Here's a quick preview of five of them.

You'll notice that we are not adopting that hideous practice of putting monster starting positions on the battlemaps.  And you can't make us!  It's horrible and assumes you're 6 years old.


----------



## Falkus

Morrus said:


> Wondering what the battlemaps in  will look like?  Here's a quick preview of five of them.




Looking good! I can't wait to get my hands on the first adventure.



Morrus said:


> You'll notice that we are not adopting that hideous practice of putting monster starting positions on the battlemaps.  And you can't make us!  It's horrible and assumes you're 6 years old.




I really appreciate this; especially after a map with a Shadowrun adventure I'm going to be running, a map that would have been otherwise perfect to hand out to the players as a map for a battle, had a notation on it saying: 'Hidden enemies here'.


----------



## OnlineDM

Excellent! I'm glad to hear that you're not putting the monster starting positions on the maps. That makes life much easier for those of us who run these adventures using programs like MapTool.


----------



## Colmarr

Is there any chance of finding out:

1. Whether the maps will be available for separate download (subscriber only, of course) rather than embedded in a pdf?

2. If the answer to #1 is yes, what pixel to square ratio the maps are prepared in? 50px per square seems to work well for maptool and would make me _really_ happy.

Oh, and , just cause I saw the code in your post, and I'm a nerd that way 

Edit: 

And having now taken a closer look at the maps, I can comment that I love them, especially the elevation markings. 3D terrain is sorely missing in 4e. 

I especially like the hedge maze, because it's the sort of encounter that will really showcase the power of virtual table tools (such as MapTool) and their vision-blocking abilities. If I could offer one piece of constructive criticism, it would be that many of the walls in the hedge maze (particularly on the western side) don't align with the edges of the map squares. That will make it more difficult to prepare the map for a virtual table program.


----------



## Morrus

Colmarr said:


> Is there any chance of finding out:
> 
> 1. Whether the maps will be available for separate download (subscriber only, of course) rather than embedded in a pdf?




I thought I posted them above? Are they not showing up for you?



> 2. If the answer to #1 is yes, what pixel to square ratio the maps are prepared in? 50px per square seems to work well for maptool and would make me _really_ happy.




I don't understand that maptool malarky, but print quality is about 300 DPI.



> And having now taken a closer look at the maps, I can comment that I love them, especially the elevation markings. 3D terrain is sorely missing in 4e.




Useable terrain is one of our design goals. Lots of space, different elevations, etc.


----------



## Cyberzombie

Looks pretty cool.  I don't use miniatures, but those maps should come in handy, any way.


----------



## OnlineDM

For what it's worth, the first map (The Docks) appears to be at a scale of 51.6 pixels per square. Really close to awesome for MapTool... but not quite there. Easy enough to resize, though (see here for the way I did it).


----------



## Colmarr

Morrus said:


> I thought I posted them above? Are they not showing up for you?




I was more asking whether you will continue to publish the maps separately online as jpgs (or other image formats), or whether the maps for Zeitgeist will only be available in the adventure pdfs.

I ask because I can't see anywhere in the old subscriber or new subscriber areas that the WotBS maps were separately published in image format.

If a Zeitgeist map is separately published as a jpg or image file (as you have done here), I can download that image directly into virtual table tops and use it as a battlemat.  


If the map is not separately published, but exists only as part of the adventure pdf (eg at the bottom of pg 56), then: 
there may be some loss of quality during the process of putting the map into the pdf;
the map might be skewed somehow to get it into the pdf (such as by narrowing its width but not adjusting its height); and
virtual tabletop users such as myself and OnlineDM need to extract the map out of the pdf into our tabeltop program of choice and then hope that the squares on the map are actually square, which leads into:



Morrus said:


> I don't understand that maptool malarky




To clarify, the pixel to square ratio of a map is a measure of how many pixels wide each square on the map is. Think of it as zoom level. A '20px per square' map is a zoomed out map, because each square is tiny. A '100px per square' map is a zoomed in map, because each square is huge.

Most virtual tabletop programs include a 'grid' that governs movement and range. The grid, rather than the squares on the image file, is used to count PC and monster movement, range etc. Therefore, to get the maps to work with the virtual tabletop, gamers need to ensure that the pixel to square ratio on the image file matches the pixel to square ratio on the virtual tabletop grid. If it isn't, then PCs and monsters will eventually end up outside map squares. 

For example, when I tried to create the githzerai monastery map from WotC's Den of the Destroyer (or indeed the keep from Keep on the Shadowfell*), I found it impossible to get the grid to line up with the squares. I concluded that the map had been squeezed at some stage so that the squares on the map weren't in fact square, thus they couldn't align with the grid (which is square).

In my ideal world, the Zeitgeist maps would be published separately as image files, with either an indication of their pixel to square ratio (ie. how many pixels long is each side of the map squares) or with every map having the same ratio. Ideally it'd be a nice even number like 30 or 50 or 100, but the actual number doesn't matter so long as we know what it is. 51.6 pixels per square is fine so long as we know it's 51.6, because that allows us to alter the virtual tabletop 'grid' to match the squares on the map without having to eyeball it. 

This information should be readily available to the person who created the map because I believe it's something they set during the creation process, and it could be made a part of the work order for maps that haven't been ordered or finalised yet (ie "map of X. Each square on the map should be 50 pixels by 50 pixels".)

Now all of this is obviously above and beyond anything any other publisher that I know of does, but I ask anyway because it would be really cool if you could accomodate us.

*Yes, OnlineDM, you ultimately pointed me to the Mad Mapper version.


----------



## Morrus

Colmarr said:


> I was more asking whether you will continue to publish the maps separately online as jpgs (or other image formats), or whether the maps for Zeitgeist will only be available in the adventure pdfs.
> 
> I ask because I can't see anywhere in the old subscriber or new subscriber areas that the WotBS maps were separately published in image format.
> 
> If a Zeitgeist map is separately published as a jpg or image file (as you have done here), I can download that image directly into virtual table tops and use it as a battlemat.
> 
> 
> If the map is not separately published, but exists only as part of the adventure pdf (eg at the bottom of pg 56), then:
> there may be some loss of quality during the process of putting the map into the pdf;
> the map might be skewed somehow to get it into the pdf (such as by narrowing its width but not adjusting its height); and
> virtual tabletop users such as myself and OnlineDM need to extract the map out of the pdf into our tabeltop program of choice and then hope that the squares on the map are actually square, which leads into:
> 
> To clarify, the pixel to square ratio of a map is a measure of how many pixels wide each square on the map is. Think of it as zoom level. A '20px per square' map is a zoomed out map, because each square is tiny. A '100px per square' map is a zoomed in map, because each square is huge.
> 
> Most virtual tabletop programs include a 'grid' that governs movement and range. The grid, rather than the squares on the image file, is used to count PC and monster movement, range etc. Therefore, to get the maps to work with the virtual tabletop, gamers need to ensure that the pixel to square ratio on the image file matches the pixel to square ratio on the virtual tabletop grid. If it isn't, then PCs and monsters will eventually end up outside map squares.
> 
> For example, when I tried to create the githzerai monastery map from WotC's Den of the Destroyer (or indeed the keep from Keep on the Shadowfell*), I found it impossible to get the grid to line up with the squares. I concluded that the map had been squeezed at some stage so that the squares on the map weren't in fact square, thus they couldn't align with the grid (which is square).
> 
> In my ideal world, the Zeitgeist maps would be published separately as image files, with either an indication of their pixel to square ratio (ie. how many pixels long is each side of the map squares) or with every map having the same ratio. Ideally it'd be a nice even number like 30 or 50 or 100, but the actual number doesn't matter so long as we know what it is. 51.6 pixels per square is fine so long as we know it's 51.6, because that allows us to alter the virtual tabletop 'grid' to match the squares on the map without having to eyeball it.
> 
> This information should be readily available to the person who created the map because I believe it's something they set during the creation process, and it could be made a part of the work order for maps that haven't been ordered or finalised yet (ie "map of X. Each square on the map should be 50 pixels by 50 pixels".)
> 
> Now all of this is obviously above and beyond anything any other publisher that I know of does, but I ask anyway because it would be really cool if you could accomodate us.
> 
> *Yes, OnlineDM, you ultimately pointed me to the Mad Mapper version.




That doesn't necessarily work because maps are commissioned by page size and DPI (eg half page, 300 DPI). The cost of a full page map is twice that of a half page map. Larger is exponentially more.

From what I understand from your description, a big map of 100 squares across which we've commissioned as a full page at 300 DPI (print quality) would actually need to be poster sized or similar and maintain the same resolution? That would cost us thousands.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you.


----------



## OnlineDM

I think that's what Colmarr's saying, yes, but here's another way of thinking about it:

If you would like to provide extra value to the members of your Silver Subscriber community (of which I will be one when my Copper expires in six weeks), release stand-along JPGs of the maps for use in virtual tabletop software, with these JPGs scaled so that one square is 50 pixels across and the squares are actually square.

When you commission the map, it's fine to commission one that's 100 squares across and fits on half a page, but it would be nice if someone with access to the original version of the image would re-scale it to the 50 pixel scale as a service to people like Colmarr and me.

It's not required, of course; we can work from the PDFs and re-size the images ourselves. But it sure would be awesome if you could make this available to subscribers! Have a map pack ZIP file with pre-formatted maps as an extra file with each PDF... awesomeness!

I'd be happy to do the re-scaling for you gratis, by the way, if that's an issue. It's not too hard to do.


----------



## Colmarr

Morrus said:


> That doesn't necessarily work because maps are commissioned by page size and DPI (eg half page, 300 DPI).




Ah, I didn't know that. The economics of it obviously affect viability.

I think what OnlineDM says is correct, that the scaling isn't such an issue. We can pretty easily do that ourselves, so long as the squares on the map are in fact square.

Pixel to square ratios (if you can get them from the artists) would help immensely, otherwise I suppose I can guesstimate by measuring in MS Paint.

@OnlineDM : I'm not even really sure if the rescaling needs to be done. Unless I'm mistaken, you can set a Maptool grid to 20px or 50 or whatever, and tokens will automatically size to that grid. It's then just a matter of zooming in or out until the map is usable. If that's the case, we really just need the pixel to square ratio to make it easier to get the scale right.

Oh, and [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION], thanks for liaising with us like this. It's thrilling to be able to interract with the publisher like this and it builds a hell of a lot of brand loyalty.


----------



## OnlineDM

Colmarr said:


> @OnlineDM : I'm not even really sure if the rescaling needs to be done. Unless I'm mistaken, you can set a Maptool grid to 20px or 50 or whatever, and tokens will automatically size to that grid. It's then just a matter of zooming in or out until the map is usable. If that's the case, we really just need the pixel to square ratio to make it easier to get the scale right.




This is true, but what if you have more than one JPG on the same MapTool map screen, and they have different grid sizes? That gets to be a huge pain. I'm a big fan of standardization, and I like to be able to grab a map and plop it down in MapTool and go with it without having to ever touch the grid scale. It makes the maps much more re-usable.

Personally, I've found it to be easier and more worthwhile to re-scale the maps in Paint.net rather than mess with the grid scale in MapTool, but that's just me.


----------



## Morrus

I don't think I understand.

Obviously making an existing map bigger is 30- seconds in MS Paint. But it loses the resolution.

To keep the resolution, you need a bigger original image. That's what costs money. Lots of it!

If you don't mind half page maps enlarged to enormous blurry sizes, we can do that happily. But to commission a 100 square across map at the size of a poster (to make it 50px per square) would cost us thousands for each map.  We'd blow the entire campaign's budget on one adventure (or have to charge $100 per adventure, but then nobody would buy them, defeating the point).

If resolution isn't an issue, and it's just a question of enlarging them despite the loss in clarity, that's easy to do. It takes about 10 seconds. But images blown up like that do loom awful for the simple reason that the artist didn't make it that big and detailed in the first place.


----------



## OnlineDM

Yep, somewhat blurry is fine. Naturally, there's a limit to the level of blurriness that's still tolerable, but I generally end up enlarging maps to 2 or 3 times their original size in order to get the scale right, and it's just fine in MapTool (we can always zoom in).

It's a small thing, but providing pre-formatted battle maps for use in programs like MapTool is a very nice touch. If you don't provide it, we can hack it ourselves from the PDFs, but like you said, it's not hard for you guys to do. It's a small "nice to have" that would further cement our loyalty to EN World. Just saying.


----------



## Colmarr

For my part, just having the image files available for download (just like you have done here, @Morrus ) is enough to make me happy.

In general, I'd actually prefer that they not be adjusted before they're published, because I anticipate using the maps 1 by 1 rather than pasting them together into one MapTool campaign file.

As an encounter on the docks map isn't likely to spill over into the hedge maze map, there's no real need for the maps to be to the same scale.

The only time that general preference would not apply is where encounter areas are adjacent to each other, and I'd like to build one overall map. That becomes difficult if the map for encounter area A is at a different scale to the map for encounter area B.

Of course, catering for us MapTool users might affect layout for pen & paper players, and I respect the balance that needs to exist there.

Thanks again for the discussion. It's easy to come off as a whinging consumer in these circumstances, so let me say again that anything you can offer us (whether significant or otherwise) is much appreciated. And even if the answer is that you can't offer us anything at all, then thanks just for the discussion and explaining why.

Edit: I just noticed that my post isn't showing me as a Community Supporter (silver). Is that something I need to turn on, or has something gone wrong with my subscription? I have access to the subscriber area...


----------



## OnlineDM

Colmarr is right - it's really not necessary to do the rescaling if that's going to be a problem in any way. I'm happy to do that myself. Just having the JPGs outside of the PDFs is awesome.

And since I haven't spelled this out yet, the maps in this thread are fantastic! I can't wait to use them.


----------



## Cyberzombie

Colmarr said:


> Edit: I just noticed that my post isn't showing me as a Community Supporter (silver). Is that something I need to turn on, or has something gone wrong with my subscription? I have access to the subscriber area...




I was wondering that, too.  I still say registered user.  I've poked around, but haven't found anything to click to make it show Community Supporter.  Probably something obvious, knowing me.


----------



## Morrus

It's a setting buried somewhere in your settings, but I can never remember where it is (it's one of those annoying non-intuitive loactions).


----------



## Morrus

If you liked those, you might like this...

(A prelim draft only).


----------



## Cyberzombie

That is neat looking, indeed.


----------



## Colmarr

Morrus said:


> If you liked those, you might like this....




I do indeed, but what is it? It's obviously a 3D version of the docks map, but for what purpose?


----------



## nortonweb

Lets you visualise the topographic layout?


----------



## Morrus

Colmarr said:


> I do indeed, but what is it? It's obviously a 3D version of the docks map, but for what purpose?




Just a nice way to visualise the scene. It's just a little extra; I'm not even sure we'll stick with the idea, but we're runnnig off some 3D versions of the maps in the first adventure to see how they look.  Sometimes maps don't quite convery the impressions of height and such very well.


----------



## Rugult

Morrus said:


> Just a nice way to visualise the scene. It's just a little extra; I'm not even sure we'll stick with the idea, but we're runnnig off some 3D versions of the maps in the first adventure to see how they look.  Sometimes maps don't quite convery the impressions of height and such very well.




I think it's a fantastic way of demonstrating heights.  It will be useful to most GMs, especially for ranged combat (*cough* guns *cough*. Height is fairly important when determining cover and range, so these maps fit the bill quite nicely!


----------



## Riastlin

Aye, I agree with [MENTION=53273]Rugult[/MENTION].  These are a great way to visualize for things like line of sight, cover, concealment, etc.  I'm not certain it will make or break things either way (i.e. the game will run perfectly fine without the 3D maps), but I certainly can see where it would help in any encounter where height can play even a modicum of a role.  It can also sometimes help a DM to visualize an otherwise complicated map.  The Nexus map from Siege of Bordrin's Watch in the SOW path comes to mind here.  I had a lot of trouble determining if there was simply an error on the printed grid or if I was just not seeing it right.

I guess that as with most things, it's gonna come down to costs.  If it costs you noticeably more to use 3D maps I'm not sure its worth the cost (as great as they are).  

/fingers crossed that the cost is negligible.


----------



## Colmarr

Morrus said:


> Just a nice way to visualise the scene. It's just a little extra




It is indeed nice, and yet another example of why EN publishing is a publisher to follow.



Riastlin said:


> If it costs you noticeably more to use 3D maps I'm not sure its worth the cost (as great as they are).
> 
> /fingers crossed that the cost is negligible.




I hope the idea is to use these _in addition to_ the normal maps, not instead of them. I can't make a MapTool map out of a 3D image.

Oh, and BTW, I fiddled around in MapTool last night and got all the preview maps to align pretty well with the MapTool grid. Not perfectly, but close enough that no one's really gonna notice. And I have to say, that hedge maze map is awesome when you throw vision blocking layers around. It's gonna drive my players mad! 

Edit:



Morrus said:


> It's a setting buried somewhere in your settings, but I can never remember where it is (it's one of those annoying non-intuitive loactions).




Found it. Settings > Networking > Group Memberships.


----------



## Riastlin

Colmarr said:


> I hope the idea is to use these _in addition to_ the normal maps, not instead of them. I can't make a MapTool map out of a 3D image.




Aye, I definitely assumed the 3D image would be in addition to the regular images, which is why I figure cost will be an issue.  Its expensive enough to print/publish the image once, I'm guessing its more money to run it a second time, particularly in a 3D format.  As I said, hopefully the cost is negligible enough that they can run both (at least for those encounters where elevation comes into play) its just that it won't surprise me if its too costly.


----------



## SirCharles

I'm really enjoying reading Island at the Axis of the World!

Seeing that there are not separate .jpgs for the battlemaps like in Wotbs (at least, not yet), I'm wondering if anyone knows of a way to make these maps printable for game use. I have Paint.net and all but I do not know how to make it so that the battlemaps work for "non-virtual" gaming. 

Any help is greatly appreciated .


----------



## Marius Delphus

You can copy the images using Adobe Reader. In Reader 9, for example, use the Select Tool, click to highlight the map image, right-click on it, and choose Copy. Then switch to Paint.NET and paste. (In Photoshop, if you create a new image it automatically sizes the image based on what's on the Clipboard. I don't know if Paint.NET does this, but if you need a blank document open you should be safe if you start with an 8"x10" image at 300 dpi.)


----------



## rangda

Morrus said:


> I don't think I understand.




I'll add my 2 cents in.  I don't use DM software (yet) and this is largely the reason why, but I do posterize the maps and print them out on 13x19" paper, which has similar problems getting the maps into the software.  

The first problem is getting the monster markers off the map, this is a huge PITA and although I don't have to do it for every map in WotBS I have to do it for some.

The second problem is that the maps don't have a correct DPI scale set in the files (although some of the WotBS maps from the first couple of modules did).  What the DPI is doesn't matter nearly as much as it being set correctly in the file and you telling us what it is.  The idea is that if I take the image and print it out I want the squares to print out 1", I don't want a map on a page with tiny squares.  This DPI has nothing to do with the DPI you use when laying out the PDF's; the map may be 5"x5" 300 DPI in the pdf (so 1500x1500 pixels) but if it is a 100x100 square map then it's 1500/100 or 15 DPI to get the 1" squares to print out as 1" squares.  This is the number that is useful to those using software (and those printing out the maps life size).

I don't know how hard it is for the map makers to supply this data, but to do it after the fact we have to guess.  So for example I load a map into Photoshop and play with the DPI until each square is vaguely 1" (usually I err on the side of a bit larger as I'm using them with minis).  For example most of the maps for WotBS 6 (which I just did yesterday) were ~33 DPI when you blow them up to have the squares print 1".


----------



## Colmarr

As mentioned earlier in the thread, OnlineDM and I will be resizing some of the maps for use in MapTool.

I'm using a map from Mad Mapper for the confrontation with Dalton & Co, but I've resized the Coaltongue map (attached) to be approximately 22 pixels per square. It's _not quite_ 22, but it's close enough that you can't really tell unless you turn Maptool's gridlines on and look closely.

[MENTION=8701]d20Monkey[/MENTION] had suggested on another site that he'd provide the scale information for the battlemaps, but to date hasn't been forthcoming. I have duly played the indignant fan and given him a prod.


----------



## torstan

And the dimesions have now been provided by d20Monkey here: On the Zeitgeist | Fantastic Maps


----------



## darthfrodo

Morrus, to snip the conversation that follows, these images you included here are great! But, will we have to come look on the forums to find them in the future, or can you make them available as a separate download in jpg format? I haven't fully embraced the VT yet, but I do print them out on a plotter and use them as my battle mat for my group and a bit of fuzziness is fine for my needs. 
Not running it yet, but it's a great setting and a good read. Looking for more!
Darth Frodo

Find the One Ring...and no disintegrations!


----------



## Ulrik

I realize that it's an old thread, but that 3D map is awesome. Will really be nice to show it to my players when they tackle the lighthouse on thursday!


----------



## RangerWickett

*We need a page with links to all the maps*

This is actually a little crazy, but does anyone know where I can find the high-res map of the Coaltongue?

Would people like a page with all the maps? What about illustrations?


----------



## morgurth

Has anyone used Masterplan Masterplan with Zeitgeist yet? I'm starting to recreate the first adventure in it and didn't want to reinvent the wheel.


----------

