Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="gizmo33" data-source="post: 3689977" data-attributes="member: 30001">Yes, of course you think it's plain.&nbsp; All of my opinions are plainly obvious to me as well.&nbsp; I agree with some of what you're saying, and probably with the important points.What I'm basically saying is to be more specific about what is good, or even why those specific elements are good.&nbsp; Then, if you want to say according to the &quot;TwinBahamut car rating guidelines&quot; that car X is better than car Y, I know that the reasoning was based on &quot;cheaper and safer&quot; out ranks gas mileage.&nbsp; To be more specific, I (nor, I suspect the industry) could make any sense out of &quot;safer&quot;.&nbsp; What &quot;safer&quot; actually means in car terminology are the results of specific tests (a crash at a certain angle and a certain speed measured against trauma on a dummy with a standard design).&nbsp; In this case safety is not a matter of someone's opinion - at least not at that level.A good map to me is a black-and-white line drawing that clearly shows me the objects.&nbsp; Apparently a good map to WotC is a pseudo-photograph in various shades of gray and brown with a grid overlaying it.&nbsp; Now either one of us is insane, or the issue of what's a good map is subjective.&nbsp; It seems obvious to me that the people that design WotC's maps are insane, but through some indirect reasoning I rationally believe that is very unlikely.&nbsp; At this point I'm forced to conclude that this must be a matter of opinion.So a review standard that's useful to me would say &quot;a 'good map' is defined as a readable diagram with contrasting colors (ex. black and white) and that helps the eye to easily discern objects, walls, etc.&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; No matter how you feel about maps then, telling me &quot;good maps&quot; in that context has some objective value.&nbsp; From a couple other posts it seems that folks are saying that the purpose of this thread is to define those standards.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="gizmo33, post: 3689977, member: 30001"] Yes, of course you think it's plain. All of my opinions are plainly obvious to me as well. I agree with some of what you're saying, and probably with the important points. What I'm basically saying is to be more specific about what is good, or even why those specific elements are good. Then, if you want to say according to the "TwinBahamut car rating guidelines" that car X is better than car Y, I know that the reasoning was based on "cheaper and safer" out ranks gas mileage. To be more specific, I (nor, I suspect the industry) could make any sense out of "safer". What "safer" actually means in car terminology are the results of specific tests (a crash at a certain angle and a certain speed measured against trauma on a dummy with a standard design). In this case safety is not a matter of someone's opinion - at least not at that level. A good map to me is a black-and-white line drawing that clearly shows me the objects. Apparently a good map to WotC is a pseudo-photograph in various shades of gray and brown with a grid overlaying it. Now either one of us is insane, or the issue of what's a good map is subjective. It seems obvious to me that the people that design WotC's maps are insane, but through some indirect reasoning I rationally believe that is very unlikely. At this point I'm forced to conclude that this must be a matter of opinion. So a review standard that's useful to me would say "a 'good map' is defined as a readable diagram with contrasting colors (ex. black and white) and that helps the eye to easily discern objects, walls, etc." No matter how you feel about maps then, telling me "good maps" in that context has some objective value. From a couple other posts it seems that folks are saying that the purpose of this thread is to define those standards. [/QUOTE]

Verification