Petition for bigger map sizes

asl80 · Post by **asl80** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 12:21 pm

count me

but you should be sure to make sure it's a worthwhile and appropriate increase

Ogrecrusher · Post by **Ogrecrusher** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 12:34 pm

Me too, although I do agree it should only be used for many territory maps.

RjBeals · Post by **RjBeals** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 1:27 pm

add me

lanyards · Post by **lanyards** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 1:34 pm

Add me.

Chirondom · Post by **Chirondom** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 2:05 pm

I support this idea. Count me in.

Black Warior · Post by **Black Warior** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 2:24 pm

Add me in it's a good idea!

Unit_2 · Post by **Unit_2** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 2:36 pm

I do beleave so, add me.

john1099 · Post by **john1099** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 6:40 pm

Put me on!

Thanks,
-John

william18 · Post by **william18** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 7:06 pm

Put me in.

iamkoolerthanu · Post by **iamkoolerthanu** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 9:06 pm

-iamkoolerthanu

Signed on the line.

Keredrex · Post by **Keredrex** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 1:59 am

Yeah Sign Me in there .... My idea for a map needs Larger Map Sizes

Jesse710 · Post by **Jesse710** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 7:12 am

I don't think it would bother most people to much if they just had to scroll down to attack would it? Just as long as we have those amazing map's like Qwert's.

KomradeKloininov · Post by **KomradeKloininov** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 12:51 pm

sign me up

benny profane · Post by **benny profane** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 3:44 pm

agreed. please add me.

plysprtz · Post by **plysprtz** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 3:55 pm

ME ME ME ME!!!!

Tieryn · Post by **Tieryn** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 1:25 am

Sign me up

bryguy · Post by **bryguy** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 8:31 am

yeti_c wrote:Read this for detailed analysis...

yeti_c wrote:OK so the size limits are there for users using 1024x768?

So let's talk width...

The left bar takes up 200 pixels (ish)
The right hand side takes up 200 pixels (ish - I know this can get bigger but it also wraps...)

So this means we have a 624 pixel width limit...

So the absolute maximum for small maps is 630 -> This seems absolutely perfectly correct...

So Large maps are designed for a res of 1280x1024?

So 1280 - 400 = 880 pixels width <- so we have a little room to play with... but the 400 inflates slightly anyway so this makes us appear not too cramped... so 840 is probably a good number -> and probably scales better than 880 too!!

Height...

The top bar (in FF with tabs) takes about 230 pixels (I don't have any stoopid toolbars either...)

The bottom bit (including a windows task bar and status bar takes about 130 pixels... however this doesn't include the Dice bits... (Then again you could scroll to that and you'd only have 140 pixels of FF to deal with)

So 768 - 130 = 638

So 600/630 is again perfectly right...

So for large... we have 1024 - 130 = 894...

So again we've a little more leeway on the large maps... but again losing a few pixels on the map gives us much more clarity and allows people to see dice and so forth...

C.

PS - Don't get me wrong - I want bigger maps - but this is the analysis that you will need to either a) prove wrong, or b) change the UI to give more space...

u confuse me

and make me think

which makes my head hurt #-o

also, idk what size i have or what the sizes are for, but i do know that i can change the width of my internet explorer page (actually its safari)

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 10:55 am

yeti_c wrote:Read this for detailed analysis...

yeti_c wrote:OK so the size limits are there for users using 1024x768?

So let's talk width...

The left bar takes up 200 pixels (ish)
The right hand side takes up 200 pixels (ish - I know this can get bigger but it also wraps...)

So this means we have a 624 pixel width limit...

So the absolute maximum for small maps is 630 -> This seems absolutely perfectly correct...

So Large maps are designed for a res of 1280x1024?

So 1280 - 400 = 880 pixels width <- so we have a little room to play with... but the 400 inflates slightly anyway so this makes us appear not too cramped... so 840 is probably a good number -> and probably scales better than 880 too!!

Height...

The top bar (in FF with tabs) takes about 230 pixels (I don't have any stoopid toolbars either...)

The bottom bit (including a windows task bar and status bar takes about 130 pixels... however this doesn't include the Dice bits... (Then again you could scroll to that and you'd only have 140 pixels of FF to deal with)

So 768 - 130 = 638

So 600/630 is again perfectly right...

So for large... we have 1024 - 130 = 894...

So again we've a little more leeway on the large maps... but again losing a few pixels on the map gives us much more clarity and allows people to see dice and so forth...

C.

PS - Don't get me wrong - I want bigger maps - but this is the analysis that you will need to either a) prove wrong, or b) change the UI to give more space...

yeti, very interesting analysis but it has a major flaw. scrolling. where's the scrolling mate??
what's wrong with scrolling? we scroll all the time.

here's what i said in the other thread:

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. 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.

The1exile · Post by **The1exile** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 11:08 am

DiM wrote:yeti, very interesting analysis but it has a major flaw. scrolling. where's the scrolling mate??
what's wrong with scrolling? we scroll all the time.

I don't disagree with you DiM, but horizontal scrolling is generally considered a bad thing in web design.

(site taken from the first result for "horizontal scrolling" in google - go figure!)

yeti_c · Post by **yeti_c** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 12:02 pm

DiM wrote:
yeti, very interesting analysis but it has a major flaw. scrolling. where's the scrolling mate??
what's wrong with scrolling? we scroll all the time.

That analysis was based on a non scrolling layout - and as 1exile points out - horizontal scrolling is bad... vertical scrolling is much better... But if avoidable then we shouldn't use it...

C.

bryguy · Post by **bryguy** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 2:48 pm

yeti_c wrote:
DiM wrote:
yeti, very interesting analysis but it has a major flaw. scrolling. where's the scrolling mate??
what's wrong with scrolling? we scroll all the time.

That analysis was based on a non scrolling layout - and as 1exile points out - horizontal scrolling is bad... vertical scrolling is much better... But if avoidable then we shouldn't use it...

C.

i agree completely for horizontal scrolling , i hate it, takes me like 20 minutes to find something on a wide page

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 3:49 pm

from the link above:

Experience has shown that visitors love to scroll in galleries to find out what is still hidden.

I mean those nasty horizontal scroll bars in a navigation frame or in iFrames. Or when you do horizontal scrolling but there is not any content on the right side of that page.

horizontal scrolling is nasty if:
1. nothing is on the right and you scroll in vain
2. what is displayed on the right can simply be put towards the bottom and scroll vertically.

BUT on CC:
1. on the right side will be the rest of the map so scrolling is needed
2. the part displayed on the right can't be put on the bottom.

PLUS:
1. without horizontal scrolling maps will never be wider than 840px no matter how much optimization lack makes
2. lack isn't willing (or at least hasn't shown any signs) that he's willing to make the site for larger resolutions (1280*1024 or 1600*1200)

i can think of only 1 way to increase the size and avoid side scrolling.
and that involves redesigning the site so that the left menu bar is retractable. (similar to the hiding bar at the bottom of your screen)
this way. the almost all of the 1024 px of the screen can be used for a map. actually not all but at least 950-980px.
and even if this is done the maps will still not be big enough.

the way i see it side scrolling is the only solution. and if huge maps that involve massive scrolling have a warning with them then i don't see what the problem is. you don't like it then don't play it, nobody is forcing you.

yeti_c · Post by **yeti_c** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 5:11 pm

Lack wants the whole map to be on screen at one time - thus - 900 odd pixels is the widest we can get for a small map - that's a whole 50% more than currently...

And that will allow the large to be somewhere in the region of 1200...

Again another 50% increase...

And that's just width... if you do the same to length (or just have scrolling) then you will have even more area to use...

You don't need a 4000^2 pixel map... With more than 50% more real estate surely you could make the maps you want to make? If not then you'll have to wait another 3 years until most people's res' is 1280x1024...

C.

d.gishman · Post by **d.gishman** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 5:22 pm

Sign me up

about the scrolling thing.. horizontal scrolling isn't so bad if the legend is off the page - you dont have to look at the legend all the time

oaktown · Post by **oaktown** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 5:58 pm

d.gishman wrote:Sign me up

about the scrolling thing.. horizontal scrolling isn't so bad if the legend is off the page - you dont have to look at the legend all the time

Right - but moving the legend so it isn't on the side in the first place would be even better.

The trouble with scrolling at this site is that if you have to scroll -horizontally or vertically - to see part of the map, at some point during a game you'll be making moves on a part of the map that you can't see while you're clicking the buttons. Imagine having to scroll between EVERY click of the attack button to see how many armies are still on a given territory, then having to scroll back to make your next move! This would absolutely ruin freestyle games - whoever has the biggest monitor wins.

Yeti suggests we can add some 300 pixels to the width of small maps by reworking the interface. This takes care of half of the problem. I would suggest that the height issue be addressed by having a horizontal scroll bar within the standard game page for large maps, so that you can bring up any region of the map and still have the attack buttons on your screen... this would put NO limit on map height, and make the skyscraper map a reality.