Conquer Club

Twill wrote:I think Jota and WM hit the nail(s) on the head.

I doubt anyone has a problem with really big maps, only with keeping small maps. Is there a way, that the cartogrpohers can think of, to make a map *playable* in small size (it doesnt necessarily have to be pretty, just basic functionality) that has the detail they want in a super size version?

Would it take coding changes (the size of the army numbers for instance) to help that happen? Or would it just take a lowering of our artistic standards?

The more detailed a plan this thread can present to lack, the more easily it might be accepted, so rather than us bickering, and going on strike, might as well try to come up with a solution because "we demand" just doesnt seem to be working too well and I'm clearly not going to convince anyone of anything

Oh, and UCAbears, nice to see you again Missed ya

I think if the bolded statement could be done, a lot more people would support it. I'm not against huge maps, I'm just against not having small maps to go along with the huge maps.


--Andy

another suggestions would be to allow the cartographer to choose the size of the XML numbers. By being able to reduce the number size by a pixal or 2 may contribute to reducing this problem and may allow the size of a map to stay a little more within the guildlines (like MIBI's prison map)

AndyDufresne wrote:

Twill wrote:I think Jota and WM hit the nail(s) on the head.

I doubt anyone has a problem with really big maps, only with keeping small maps. Is there a way, that the cartogrpohers can think of, to make a map *playable* in small size (it doesnt necessarily have to be pretty, just basic functionality) that has the detail they want in a super size version?

Would it take coding changes (the size of the army numbers for instance) to help that happen? Or would it just take a lowering of our artistic standards?

The more detailed a plan this thread can present to lack, the more easily it might be accepted, so rather than us bickering, and going on strike, might as well try to come up with a solution because "we demand" just doesnt seem to be working too well and I'm clearly not going to convince anyone of anything

Oh, and UCAbears, nice to see you again Missed ya

I think if the bolded statement could be done, a lot more people would support it. I'm not against huge maps, I'm just against not having small maps to go along with the huge maps.


--Andy

I have an interesting thought on that. A lot of map artists like the only difference between the large and small map being size. If the game play was exactly the same couldn't a small map be less graphically intense to allow for more room to display the useful game play information?

gimil wrote:another suggestions would be to allow the cartographer to choose the size of the XML numbers. By being able to reduce the number size by a pixal or 2 may contribute to reducing this problem and may allow the size of a map to stay a little more within the guildlines (like MIBI's prison map)

I'm not sure how this could be accomplished. The numbers are 3 pixels thick as is, which I believe is as small as possible. The only way they could be smaller is eliminating portions of, or all of, the black outline. Another possibility is making them shorter perhaps, but the width wouldn't be changeable, and the width is what is causing most of the problem.

Coleman wrote:

gimil wrote:another suggestions would be to allow the cartographer to choose the size of the XML numbers. By being able to reduce the number size by a pixal or 2 may contribute to reducing this problem and may allow the size of a map to stay a little more within the guildlines (like MIBI's prison map)

I'm not sure how this could be accomplished. The numbers are 3 pixels thick as is, which I believe is as small as possible. The only way they could be smaller is eliminating portions of, or all of, the black outline. Another possibility is making them shorter perhaps, but the width wouldn't be changeable, and the width is what is causing most of the problem.

very true. cant eliminate the black line or it wont be visible sometimes unless army circle were compulsary. we'll there could be a choice weather a palyer wanted the black lines or not?

Coleman, that's exactly my thought - anyone want to make a suggestion at how a non-graphics intensive map might look? i.e. take the supermax map and see if a schematic version could be made (it's kinda confusing to look at as it is anyway) kinda like a subway topographical map type thing? It's aint pretty but it would be playable and could be made to keep with a theme....(don't know if Lack would like this, but it's a thought)

gimli - I think you might be on a good thought, but how could you keep the feel of a unified site (for business reasons) and give the map makers that much more freedom with the numbers? high contrast lettering with smaller fonts? unlimited cusomizability or set choices? would it be possible to shrink some nubers but make others larger at certain times - your armies and those around you are larger than the rest (would that even be useful to the goal??) Would it really be bad for people with small screens to not be able to read the armies AND be stuck on a graphically worse map?

Twill wrote:Coleman, that's exactly my thought - anyone want to make a suggestion at how a non-graphics intensive map might look? i.e. take the supermax map and see if a schematic version could be made (it's kinda confusing to look at as it is anyway) kinda like a subway topographical map type thing? It's aint pretty but it would be playable and could be made to keep with a theme....(don't know if Lack would like this, but it's a thought)

gimli - I think you might be on a good thought, but how could you keep the feel of a unified site (for business reasons) and give the map makers that much more freedom with the numbers? high contrast lettering with smaller fonts? unlimited cusomizability or set choices? would it be possible to shrink some nubers but make others larger at certain times - your armies and those around you are larger than the rest (would that even be useful to the goal??) Would it really be bad for people with small screens to not be able to read the armies AND be stuck on a graphically worse map?

gimil not gimli

and i see where you coming from jsut a brainstormed idea

AndyDufresne wrote:

Twill wrote:
I doubt anyone has a problem with really big maps, only with keeping small maps. Is there a way, that the cartogrpohers can think of, to make a map *playable* in small size (it doesnt necessarily have to be pretty, just basic functionality) that has the detail they want in a super size version?

I think if the bolded statement could be done, a lot more people would support it. I'm not against huge maps, I'm just against not having small maps to go along with the huge maps.


--Andy

it can be done with ease but would you quench a map that's stunningly beautiful on the large/huge version but very ugly in the small one?

a sketch with absolutely no fancy graphics and mumbo jumbo can be made and have the same playability of the large version but it would be damn ugly.

for example if i make the Age of Realms map at 1200-1200 px you could even see the little carts of gold from the mine or the wood in the fences from the houses and at the same time i could make a small version where i write village and you imagine the houses, i write gold mine and you imagine there's a mine and a mountain there, etc. lot's of space could be saved this way. would you quench that?

i don't approve of this idea. It simple means that the quality and standard of the foundry would drop.

gimil wrote:i don't approve of this idea. It simple means that the quality and standard of the foundry would drop.

i don't agree either but andy said this is the only way to have big maps. make a small ugly version to dit the guidelines and a large pretty version.

andy, could i have your opinion on this please?

DiM wrote:

Jota wrote:

mibi wrote:I dont see the problem with giving choice to play big maps to the actual players instead of the admins or cartographers.

It's not about whether or not players are given the choice to play on big maps. It is about whether or not players are given the choice to play on small maps. Lack might well some day allow a "Huge" size in addition to the other two sizes, like Widows suggested. But that's a separate issue entirely, and it won't change the current problem: If you don't make a 600px version of your map, then you're taking away the player's option to play (what has been officially defined as) the Small version of your map.

world 2.1 doesn't have a small 600px version. in fact the small version for world 2.1 is bigger than the large version for ireland. is it taking away the pleasure for people to play? i don't think so.

in fact world 2.1 has almost 37 thousand games while ireland has just 7 thousand. i say if a map is good enough people are willing to scroll a little bit more than usual.

epic or huge maps should be allowed and put under a separate category. maybe put all the maps in resolution based categories like this:

Optimised for 800*600 (meaning that's the minimal resolution to play the small map)
Optimised for 1024*768 (meaning that's the minimal resolution to play the small map)
Optimised for 1280*1024 (meaning that's the minimal resolution to play the small map)
Optimised for 1600*1200 (meaning that's the minimal resolution to play the small map)
etc.

then each player would know what he's getting into.

and it wouldn't be too much trouble to add a few more lines of text and group the maps in another way.

I'm just trying to think of a compromise. As for small map being less graphically intense, it's hard to say what would make it through, without an example.


--Andy

lackattack wrote:but only 12% of members that made it past new recruit have their map size set to large.

that's me

well these is 1 examle with mine map WWII EUROPE(Dimension 850x500)
If you can se in mine map you can see all map and also you can se your move down.

DiM, Gim[b]i[/i]l (sorry ), low intensity graphics doesnt have mean "ugly", there is a huge difference between say the Age of Realms map and the Supermax map on one end and the original (pysical board game) map of the classic world.

On my risk board it's just a basic map with countries of different colours. Simple, but elegant and easily squeezable.

Take the supermax map for example, to squeeze those few extra pixels external walls could be thinner, backgrounds could be higher contrast/lower detail, the floor could be different colours rather than the circles as identification (making circles/shields more flexible) - It would have to be a drastic departure from the beauty of the larger maps, but would be a compromise that, perhaps, everyone could live with because it would get the really interesting playbility of that map out there, and we could look at the large map to ooh and ahh but would be able to play a regular map. Just an example...just a thought.

Oh and gimil, on re-reading my last post, it sounded like it was attacking you when it was meant to be a continuation of the brainstorming you began and hoping you would continue, sorry about that, really didn't mean to come off like that.

could i have an official opinion on world 3.0 before i get to work on it?
i don't want to spend my time making it only to abandon it because of size regulations.

link is in my sig.

i think you know the answer alreADY!!!!

hulmey wrote:i think you know the answer alreADY!!!!

until a mod comes to that thread and says his opinion i don't know the answer. i can only guess it.

DiM wrote:

hulmey wrote:i think you know the answer alreADY!!!!

until a mod comes to that thread and says his opinion i don't know the answer. i can only guess it.

I think their answer will be a NO, but if you find a way to do the map without completely destroying the size limits, you may get a yes.

I'm wondering why this thread was open for discussion and not locked from the start..............

*edit*- ah the were allowing for questions, funny*

wcaclimbing wrote:

DiM wrote:

hulmey wrote:i think you know the answer alreADY!!!!

until a mod comes to that thread and says his opinion i don't know the answer. i can only guess it.

I think their answer will be a NO, but if you find a way to do the map without completely destroying the size limits, you may get a yes.

i also think it will be a no. that's why i put that poll. at this moment 82% of people said they want world 3.0 even if it exceeds the size guidelines. my goal is to make it as small as possible that's why i said the oceans may get a little squished and zoom boxes will be used but even so the size will be quite big.

I'm just going to take a guess here but I'd say that you should focus on other maps for now and wait for the clogs of decision making to turn slowly. I doubt we will get an official answer as quickly as any of us would like

zoom boxes?? did I miss a new feature or do you just mean enlarged map sections?

ajax zoom boxes would rock

Twill wrote:I'm just going to take a guess here but I'd say that you should focus on other maps for now and wait for the clogs of decision making to turn slowly. I doubt we will get an official answer as quickly as any of us would like

zoom boxes?? did I miss a new feature or do you just mean enlarged map sections?

ajax zoom boxes would rock

actually all my current projects are waiting for some sort of decision.
tell me which one should get my undivided attention until this size issue is solved?

Life in Prison: Money and Respect - is waiting for new xml features (necessary) and parhaps a 3d enviroment (not necessary)
World 3.0 - is waiting for new size regulations
Age of Realms Trilogy - Chapter 1: Age of Might - is waiting for size regulations.
Freaks Unleashed (still unreleased) - waiting for new xml features
Evolver (still unreleased) - waiting for new xml features and perhaps size regulations.
Beyond and Back (still unreleased) - waiting for new xml features and perhaps a 3d enviroment.
Life (still unreleased) - waiting for new xml features and perhaps size regulations.
Red 1,2 and 3 (none of them released) - waiting for new xml features.
Stormer (still unreleased) - waiting for new xml features.
Gaia (still unreleased) - waiting for new xml features and perhaps a 3d enviroment.



PS: zoom box = enlarged map section in a box

I think you should focus on lack getting a clone, because he's only one man mate, that's a lot of waiting on features

try doing something simple? :-p

I'm not an admin or mod, I dont know much more than you do about what's going on, focus on what makes you happy and try to squeeze it into what you can do now - then update later if possible?

yeah, no f'in clue, sorry. just one of those wait and see if it changes, but dont hold your breath situations I think

Twill wrote:try doing something simple? :-p

i don't find any challenge in doing something simple. when i think of my projects i always ask myself 2 questions:

1. will people have fun playing it?
2. will i have fun doing it?

with a simple project probably people would have fun but i would get bored to death.


and yes i know i have a lot of waiting to do. that's why most of the projects presented above haven't been released yet. if you look in the xml thread you'll see i have a lot of requests for xml features and those are just a small portion.