| 1 |
[q] I'm not understanding this sentence. Directed in what way?[/q]
|
1 |
[q] I'm not understanding this sentence. Directed in what way?[/q]
|
| 2 |
In the sense of forming a directed graph, and their sides being unequal in meaning. E.g. consider this visual language of circles:
|
2 |
In the sense of forming a directed graph, and their sides being unequal in meaning. E.g. consider this visual language of circles:
|
| 3 |
\n
|
3 |
\n
|
| 4 |
[img]https://i.imgur.com/QJGzasS.png[/img]
|
4 |
[img]https://i.imgur.com/QJGzasS.png[/img]
|
| 5 |
The boundaries here are directional - one is an inwards boundary, and another is an outwards boundary.
|
5 |
The boundaries here are directional - one is an inwards boundary, and another is an outwards boundary.
|
|
|
6 |
\n
|
|
|
7 |
[q]I'd say LLTA Complex is a good example of a map where height is a sufficiently important factor to make the theory largely invalid on itself. The center of the map is not strategically important because its in the shadow of massive hills, specially near the top, which make it an unviable position to hold. Combine that with the fact that its not economically important either, and its easy to see why its such a porcy map.[/q]
|
|
|
8 |
Good point. I'll ponder about how to formalize this.
|
Some map design theories and their use in Random Crags