Block Colours

I usually do so to make the parts of the map easier to recognize. It's easy for callouts (green room) with most maps. But if you can make each part of the map easy to recognize without colors, go for it.

 

it really depends on the map I'd say.

 

Agreed some maps it works while some it dont.

 

If it is an Arena style symmetrical it an be really helpful to give block colour to each section. But, if it is a map with quite recognisable aesthetics it isn't really needed.

 

There is a concept of visual noise. The more noise the more distracting and confusing. The blocks on Ravine are by far the most noisy when used together. The blocks on Impact are the sharpest of contrast (black on white), but can be carefully used to tone down the noise. Erosion can look beautiful if done correctly. I hate Ravine. I don't see any hope for the blocks on Ravine.

The cohesiveness of an overall architecture across the map is very powerful when done correctly. Notice in the following pic that the walk ways are all the same - they use 2x2 flats to leverage the soft gray (rather than any hard black) lines against the white. The black edges of the large ramps are used as a border for the wall's walkway (a visual cue of the boundaries). The buildings all use soft colors against white.



Notice the way the stunt ramps are used to give a strong vertical stripe in the vertical direction of the building to help them look tall and majestic, with very thin lines laterally. (If it were the other way around, they would look short and fat, not good.)

Once you establish a quality architecture across the map with subtle shade differences, you can add Dominion pieces or Extraction pieces and use them to add color very selectively, yet very pronounced, as a means of adding callouts to your map. They are the "detailing" of your map, not the central architectural theme. Notice in the pic above the yellow base, and the core building.

Now take a look at this map. The architectures of the three main buildings look vastly different from each other. They don't look like they belong together. This is what you do not want to do.



Also, the building in the foreground (lower right edge) is visually noisy - very bad...

 

I came here to have a little read about what was going on and just received a lesson in forging. Very helpful . Thank you Mr. Green.

 

I think that either one can be made to work based on the map. If specific locations and important paths are easy to call out based on location, then you can get away with using only two colors. A map that's symmetrical along two axes, though, should probably use at least four colors.

Bear in mind that the lighting itself could be considered a "color" if done properly. If one side of a map is shadowed, and the other side is lit, then they can be called out accordingly.

(As MrGreenWithAGun said, Extraction crates are good for coloring a map, due to their bright glow. They are destructible, though, so be careful to overlap them with existing walls and columns.)

 

very good write-up as usual, Mr. Green. I have understood some of those concepts but not necessarily as in-depth and well-worded as that.

it's too bad that designing specifically for visual style cannot coincide with using least number of pieces and the ones with the best shapes for your job. sometimes they do, but they are mutually exclusive.

I definitely go for a visual way to differentiate between areas, but I also agree that colors are over-used or used as a crutch in this manner.

the lines and consistency are more important IMO.

 

Focal Points/Reference Points

Lazy forgers use colors, clever forgers use reference points and incorporate them into their design.

 

I think this gets into an area of education vs laziness, though certainly some are lazy.

I had a venture into more of an "in the wild" type of custom games last week, where one guy organized a lobby and he invited people at random to play FFA.

That experience was more or less horrible mostly because of the maps that pass as "good" maps in that type of disorganized community.

What appears to happen in this type of venue is:
guy makes map
guy gets friends to play map (not playtest, just play)
friends say they love map (probably because friend made it)
"good" map gets circulated amongs those friends and is now considered "popular" and its creator seen as some sort of oracle of map creation.

If any of them took at look at sites like ForgeHub and tried to understand why some maps are more popular than others on this site, they'd have some pretty big revelations that they should probably throw all of their maps in the garbage and sit and study good map creation for a while.

Here's to hoping there's a way to truly circulate the better maps more frequently than the crappy ones!

 

Well, I would advocate using detail color in general, because other forms of callout can be confusing.

For example, in the pic I gave above, Core Building is obvious, but what do you call the tall building in the middle of the map? Terms like "mid" only apply if there is geometric pattern where mid is obvious. Top and bottom are obvious.

I saw colored turrets that was inaccessible, so you saw the color silhouette only and you could say "red turret". But honestly simple colors are usually the easiest to implement. I think coming up with common architecture that is obvious can be difficult.

 

1. Symmetrical maps have repeating locations. Easily noticeable reference points are difficult to implement when the map stays fundamentally the same on both sides.
2. Many locations cannot be described simply, or many players may have different definitions. For example, look at Hive by Auburn. If there were no colors, imagine how difficult it would be to describe the rooms. Hell, even your Stomping Ground has challenging locations to name.
3. I consider the forger lazy if they have to provide the names of the locations themselves because they cannot be described in one or two common words.

 

This^