Conquer Club

Now I am not agaisnt a map size increase in the slightest, but since the petition for doesnt really reflect the the size of conquer clubs membership i thought an anti petition might be able to show some kind of balance in the issues.

The anti petition:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.

me NOT

if more then 10 people signs this poll I will be amazed

tim02 wrote:me NOT

if more then 10 people signs this poll I will be amazed

as will i. essentially this will give admin a comparision of for or against on a small group of individuals.

gimil, why are you helping with Epoch if you know that it cannot continue with the current size restrictions?

Unfortunately these topics really aren't doing anything. We've already said we want, and are trying to get, bigger maps. But we said that a few things need to be done first, I.E. interface adjustment.


--Andy

I'm against phasing out a smaller map option, if that's in question. On my own computer, I can see everything on every map in the largest size, but when I play in different places, the computers aren't always up to par, so I need to drop down to a smaller size and scroll a lot. Map size obviously restricts production of supermaps like the skyscraper, where scrolling is intended, but bumping up the largest size would lead to images of new maps being made as large as possible, when a smaller image would suffice.

ME!!!!!!




i just like signing petitions

unless bryguy is serious, I volunteer to take the heat associated with being name number 1 on this petition. But before you flame me, please be kind enough to read my rationale.

Now, I honestly don't care how big the largest map size is set at. We can have 4000x4000 pixel maps for all I care, and those of you who have your PCs hooked up to LCD projectors can cast high resolution Doodle Earth on the side of your neighbor's house.

My concern is the same as that of BaldAdonis: when we say the large maps can be larger, what happens to small maps? We are already seeing some pretty hard to read small maps - my maps included - because many maps are being designed with more territories and with the 800x800 pixel version in mind. Let's say I want to create a larger classic style geographical map with 80 territories or so; might look great in 1000x1000 pixels, with an 800x800 smaller map, but the 600x600 wouldn't be playable.

Everybody who has signed on to the petition to allow larger maps is also implying - but not actually talking about - the need to do one of the following:
1. abandon the 600x600 pixel small map standard entirely, or
2. rework the game page in such a way that large maps can be accommodated on small screens.

If you've followed the history of this debate it seems pretty clear that lack doesn't want to drop the 600x600 pixel small map requirement, since a fair number of users are playing on laptops. So option 1 seems pretty dead.

Option 2, anyone? Lose the CC menu bar on the left hand side of the scree? Display the map within a vertical and horizontal scroll bars? Make the map draggable with a mouse click? Make each map in four quadrants, so you click on and blow up one quadrant at a time, picture-in-picture style? Somebody convince me that something will work and I'll have my name removed from this petition.

im serius about all petitions i sign, except when im not

oaktown wrote:unless bryguy is serious, I volunteer to take the heat associated with being name number 1 on this petition. But before you flame me, please be kind enough to read my rationale.

Now, I honestly don't care how big the largest map size is set at. We can have 4000x4000 pixel maps for all I care, and those of you who have your PCs hooked up to LCD projectors can cast high resolution Doodle Earth on the side of your neighbor's house.

My concern is the same as that of BaldAdonis: when we say the large maps can be larger, what happens to small maps? We are already seeing some pretty hard to read small maps - my maps included - because many maps are being designed with more territories and with the 800x800 pixel version in mind. Let's say I want to create a larger classic style geographical map with 80 territories or so; might look great in 1000x1000 pixels, with an 800x800 smaller map, but the 600x600 wouldn't be playable.

Everybody who has signed on to the petition to allow larger maps is also implying - but not actually talking about - the need to do one of the following:
1. abandon the 600x600 pixel small map standard entirely, or
2. rework the game page in such a way that large maps can be accommodated on small screens.

If you've followed the history of this debate it seems pretty clear that lack doesn't want to drop the 600x600 pixel small map requirement, since a fair number of users are playing on laptops. So option 1 seems pretty dead.

Option 2, anyone? Lose the CC menu bar on the left hand side of the scree? Display the map within a vertical and horizontal scroll bars? Make the map draggable with a mouse click? Make each map in four quadrants, so you click on and blow up one quadrant at a time, picture-in-picture style? Somebody convince me that something will work and I'll have my name removed from this petition.

I concur, entirely - especially as I have now started taking turns using my phone. From a player's perspective I adore large maps, but exclusively play them on "small" - a dilemma that sums up this debate.

I posted an analysis of the current size limits in the other thread - and it was all but ignored - which implies to me that no-one really understands the exact problem here.

C.

i love the look of large maps but what yeti posted on the other thread does make complete sense in terms of what technical issues need to be solved first. I always play on the small map versions no matter what size screen im using and like benji i have lately been making the odd move on my phone too si its vital in my opinion that where possible small maps remain too.

yeti_c wrote:I posted an analysis of the current size limits in the other thread - and it was all but ignored - which implies to me that no-one really understands the exact problem here.

C.

hmm i couldnt find it

Now, when they have a petition for bigger maps, I signed up on the understanding we were talking about numbers of territories in a single map, not having a discussion about the relative merits and fallbacks of having small and large maps... How this thread has nosedived into that discussion, I can see, but correct me if I'm wrong, we're talking about larger maps in terms of numbers of territories, hence why it's a good thing now there are 8 player games...

Finally, if that -is- the case, then why would you petition against it? If you don't like bigger maps, don't play them. No-one's forcing you to. But they should be available if people want to make them (for free in their own time) and if we want to play them (for close to free, in our own time).

Why are there limits on what we can and can't play? Is it a coding issue with buffer overflow problems or something? Or is there an arbitrary limit of territory numbers, and if so, what is it? Or is there just a shake of the head and a "too big"?

Tieryn wrote:Now, when they have a petition for bigger maps, I signed up on the understanding we were talking about numbers of territories in a single map, not having a discussion about the relative merits and fallbacks of having small and large maps... How this thread has nosedived into that discussion, I can see, but correct me if I'm wrong, we're talking about larger maps in terms of numbers of territories, hence why it's a good thing now there are 8 player games...

Finally, if that -is- the case, then why would you petition against it? If you don't like bigger maps, don't play them. No-one's forcing you to. But they should be available if people want to make them (for free in their own time) and if we want to play them (for close to free, in our own time).

Why are there limits on what we can and can't play? Is it a coding issue with buffer overflow problems or something? Or is there an arbitrary limit of territory numbers, and if so, what is it? Or is there just a shake of the head and a "too big"?

actually the petition for larger maps is for more pixels wide/long, which all the maps so far (xcept maybe world 2.1 which is getting boring) work well for 8 player games, so people want larger/wider map sizes so that they can do that and have (in the case of skyscraper) over 50-150 territories

If you want to create map over 100 terittory,in present size restriction,these map will be very unreadabile,or terittory will be so small that you can not se borders.

qwert wrote:If you want to create map over 100 terittory,in present size restriction,these map will be very unreadabile,or terittory will be so small that you can not se borders.

yep

i still don't see what's the problem with a 4000*4000px map.
i say make maps as big as you want. and they will be put in a separate category named HUGE maps. there the maps won't have small and large. just huge. people will be warned about creating such a game and the scrolling involved and they'll do it at their own risk. if you know you access the net on your mobile phone then by all means don't start a game on such a map.


also the huge maps will be under close surveillance by andy and coleman and they'll make sure the size is that big only if the map requires it. it would be kinda stupid to have a 10 terit map on 4000*4000 px.

in my mind this is the only reasonable solution because no matter how much lack optimises the site's layout he still won't be able to squeeze a 4000*4000px map.

DiM wrote:i still don't see what's the problem with a 4000*4000px map.
i say make maps as big as you want. and they will be put in a separate category named HUGE maps. there the maps won't have small and large. just huge. people will be warned about creating such a game and the scrolling involved and they'll do it at their own risk.

So you're proposing a two tier system; people with big monitors can play the 4000x4000pix maps, while the rest of the site's users can't? Personally, I'd be kinda pissed if suddenly there were game play features of this site that I as a paying member can't access.

If we're going to implement a haves/have nots system, I would also propose that we have a second level of paid membership: Premium Plus. Premium Plus members pay an extra $15 a year for the privilege of playing the large maps. Because right now people are paying for a service they can use on their laptops or when they travel, and Lack is going to have people asking for their money back when they realize they've been left out in the cold on new maps.

also the huge maps will be under close surveillance by andy and coleman and they'll make sure the size is that big only if the map requires it. it would be kinda stupid to have a 10 terit map on 4000*4000 px.

Yes, it would be stupid, but it will happen.

Riddle me this, Batman: why is 18 territory Doodle Earth 800 pixels wide?
Answer: because it can be.

The large Doodle map would look fine if it was 700 pixels wide - in fact it would look better. But as soon as you incrase the max pixel size, your average mapmaker is going to make their map as large as possible regardless of whether or not it is appropriate.

And it's easy to say that the CAs will keep mapmakers from making maps larger than they need to, but what would you say, DiM, if Coleman told me I can make my map 1200 pixels wide, but yours can only be 800? It would be foundry revolution #2, and I would support you because what's good for me is good for you. We need one standard for everybody, so everybody is treated fairly. No exceptions, no special circumstances.

my maps are usually 800 wide exact...... by accident


oh and that is for large and small

And it's easy to say that the CAs will keep mapmakers from making maps larger than they need to, but what would you say, DiM, if Coleman told me I can make my map 1200 pixels wide, but yours can only be 800? It would be foundry revolution #2, and I would support you because what's good for me is good for you. We need one standard for everybody, so everybody is treated fairly. No exceptions, no special circumstances.

Can you tell me how to fit WWII EUROPE map in 630x600?

oaktown wrote:

DiM wrote:i still don't see what's the problem with a 4000*4000px map.
i say make maps as big as you want. and they will be put in a separate category named HUGE maps. there the maps won't have small and large. just huge. people will be warned about creating such a game and the scrolling involved and they'll do it at their own risk.

So you're proposing a two tier system; people with big monitors can play the 4000x4000pix maps, while the rest of the site's users can't? Personally, I'd be kinda pissed if suddenly there were game play features of this site that I as a paying member can't access.

If we're going to implement a haves/have nots system, I would also propose that we have a second level of paid membership: Premium Plus. Premium Plus members pay an extra $15 a year for the privilege of playing the large maps. Because right now people are paying for a service they can use on their laptops or when they travel, and Lack is going to have people asking for their money back when they realize they've been left out in the cold on new maps.

what do you mean you can't play it?
look at this image and imagine it is a map (btw this is the base for what i wanted to use in world 3.0). obviously none of us has a monitor that supports 6400*3200 resolutions but still even if you have a 12" display you can see it and play it. you'll just scroll more than people with a 21" display. so what? nobody says you can't play it.
it has nothing to do with paying for premium or not. if a guy has such a shitty pc that it crashes when conquerman xml loads does it mean he will ask for his money back? clearly no because he has 70 other maps he can choose from and nobody is forcing him to play conquerman.
i've played games on all kinds of displays and not even once have i complained or asked for money back because my pc wasn't capable to run that game or that my resolution is too low. if i have a shitty graphics card that can't run the new graphics wow has in the latest update can i ask for my money back? should i sue blizzard for releasing content that is nicer than the previous ones? with this attitude online games will never evolve because there will always be the odd player that has hamster powered computer that crashes when he runs solitaire.
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/4q00/macosx-pb1/images/earth-map-huge.jpg

oaktown wrote:

also the huge maps will be under close surveillance by andy and coleman and they'll make sure the size is that big only if the map requires it. it would be kinda stupid to have a 10 terit map on 4000*4000 px.

Yes, it would be stupid, but it will happen.

Riddle me this, Batman: why is 18 territory Doodle Earth 800 pixels wide?
Answer: because it can be.

The large Doodle map would look fine if it was 700 pixels wide - in fact it would look better. But as soon as you incrase the max pixel size, your average mapmaker is going to make their map as large as possible regardless of whether or not it is appropriate.

And it's easy to say that the CAs will keep mapmakers from making maps larger than they need to, but what would you say, DiM, if Coleman told me I can make my map 1200 pixels wide, but yours can only be 800? It would be foundry revolution #2, and I would support you because what's good for me is good for you. We need one standard for everybody, so everybody is treated fairly. No exceptions, no special circumstances.

doodle earth is 800 px wide because it can be but mostly because at that resolution it doesn't skew the site. with higher resolutions that force horizontal scrolling it is expected to have a new set of simple rules.
for example. a map can be huge only if it has 150+ terits. a huge map isn't allowed needless unused space and stuff like that. really simple actually and i doubt we can talk about a possible revolution if we have rules. you have 40 terits then fit them in the old guidelines. you have 500 then you can make a huge map but you'll be under close supervision.

qwert wrote:Can you tell me how to fit WWII EUROPE map in 630x600?

It can't. So what you're saying is that because you WANT to make a map that doesn't work given the current restrictions, you get an exception to the rule? Let's apply that rule to real life...
"I WANT to sell crack to kids... so the authorities should let me."
"I DON'T WANT to pay taxes, so the government should tell me I don't have to."
"I bought a car that goes faster than the speed limit, and I WANT to drive faster than the speed limit, so I should get a sticker that says I can."

I will say this again for those of you who have a knee-jerk reaction to my posts: I am not opposed to having bigger maps at this site. In fact, I am in favor of it. We should have maps with hundreds of territories. We should have maps on which it takes months to play a complete game. Every map should have a high resolution huge image for people with big monitors.

BUT

Instead of just signing a 'petition' that says "I want to have big maps" there should be some actual discussion about how to implement this. I'm not seeing that in the other thread.

So, I challenge everyone to propose a solution to the huge map conundrum that:
1. sets up the same set of rules/expectations for every mapmaker,
2. doesn't exclude any users from being able to play maps due to monitor size,
3. maintains a friendly user interface, and
4. will make lack happy.

Oaktown, your examples are ridiculus.

Give us some time to work the interface...and we'll see what happens.


--Andy