One Large Map or Smaller Maps Question

[willquestion]

Hey Guys,
So I'm running a group though the first part of 'Scales of War' and I'm rolling over if I should make some massive maps or maps focused on just rooms. Now, one thing we're doing that will help with loading is I'm uploading .dat file they need online for them to download and put in the proper folder so they won't have to download everything from me when we connect.

Some info. I'm doing a 50x50 pixel squares. I know kinda big, but could be worse I suppose. The miniatures are of course the same pixel size.

Any thoughts?
Will

[Foen]

I like Xorne's idea: a small-scale map covering a wide area (for general use, perhaps DM-only with traps etc marked, but equally handy for the players) and large-scale encounter maps for the key areas. If you make the maps yourself, you can even generate both kinds of map from the same (large-scale) source.

Foen

[Sigurd]

Two issues really.

If you zoom a big map down to a useful size for a party room does it look all pixelated? - Cut the map out of the big one and make a smaller high def version.


Are you sharing files that could easily be smaller? I never have pictures that cover more than one level or logical zone. I very rarely have a pic that is only one room.

The idea of a DM's maps with pins to help you organize your data is a good one. FG really could use some better DM support.

Sigurd

[willquestion]

I was actually able to make a map for the first level of the dungeon in 'Rescue of Rivenroar' under 1 mb with squares being 100x100 pixels. Should I go with that? Or should I go with 50x50 pixel squares at 360 kb?

[Griogre]

Generally speaking the smaller the map the less problems you will have. I would personally make your grid no larger than the size of your medium tokens (50x50) because tokens tend to look poor scaled up (and you have to do it on the combat tracker).

When I make a map for FG I usually make the grid around 60-80% of the size of a medium monsters. Usually you can zoom the map in a small amount without affecting the quality of the map and the file size savings add up quite a bit.

Keeping the file size down is very worthwhile in FG because most transfer problems come from transfering large or many images.

[willquestion]

It looks like if I use a 50% compression with the JPEG in Photoshop the map will be at 300kb. That's with 50x50 pixels. Would that seem close to something you would use yourself?

[Griogre]

The short answer is: Yes. :)

The longer answer is because that format, JPEG, is lossy if you are making your own maps you don't want to save or work on your original in JPEG just "save as" the final to JPEG.

[willquestion]

Yeah I'm working in PNG then saving in JPG. When I'm done with the first level, I'll probably post it somewhere on the forums.