Conquer Club

WidowMakers wrote:

Coleman wrote:We're going to change the rule, you won that. But we still need a way to require that large maps be noticeably larger than their small maps. And if people need specifics we can come back with the 9-33%.

Andy told me to go ahead and change and color it. I should probably do that.

OK I will do the graphics for europe if you do the XML

Fine, we should conduct the rest of that via e-mail or pm. Thank you.

Coleman,

Regarding the new map size rule.

I see that you updated the How To Make a Map thread here in the Foundry proper - but you also need to update the How a Map Progresses through the Foundry thread in Map Ideas

Are there going to be minimum dimensions for a Small map? And Large maps? Because a Large map that is only 9% larger than a Small map that only just meets whatever minimum size is agreed upon for small - won't cut it.

EDIT: to add those last few questions.

Those large maps could almost be small according to the new rules.

WWII Eastern Front BOTH
smallwidth 629
smallheight 459
largewidth 692
largeheight 505

Rule says that map not must be biger then 800x600. They not say what is low limit for Large image.
Large map with these dimension is very clear,and people dont have any complains, even more when i put Eastern Front to be larger people give me sugestion that i must create large version smaler then these Limits.

Its something change with Extra large map-850x800 px?

OK here are the map stats.








WM

That settles the 9% for me. And most fall close to the recommended 33.3% Sorry for the pain this might be for your map WidowMakers. Anyone thinking of any other issues that aren't clear somewhere that may pop up, or are you keeping them to yourself hoping to exploit them?

Coleman wrote:That settles the 9% for me. And most fall close to the recommended 33.3% Sorry for the pain this might be for your map WidowMakers. Anyone thinking of any other issues that aren't clear somewhere that may pop up, or are you keeping them to yourself hoping to exploit them?

No problem. I already posted in the map thread. I will make a larger version. I don't know how big yet. I need to do some math and figure out how I am going to scale the pixels correctly.

AS far as other areas of exploit. I don't currently have any. I believe map size rules have been beaten to death.

WM

I can live with the 9% to 33% rule, since it allows for differences in map needs and it seems to be based on something other than an arbitrary number. Of course, Wid could follow the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law by making his small map 9% smaller, but he's a team player so I don't think he will. Minimum size is still a loophole, but my hope is that this kind of thing will be caught by the Foundry and the public outcry would hold up progress.

WidowMakers wrote:AS far as other areas of exploit. I don't currently have any. I believe map size rules have been beaten to death.

I'm sure we'll come up with something else in a month or two and have another knock-down drag-out.

This thread should be required reading for anybody who accuses the Foundry-ites of sticking together and saving our criticism for outsiders.

Coleman
Cartography Ass.


Joined: 03 Jan 2007
Posts: 3187
Location: Omaha (Nebraska, USA)
Posted: 09 Nov 2007 19:12 Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We're going to change the rule, you won that. But we still need a way to require that large maps be noticeably larger than their small maps. And if people need specifics we can come back with the 9-33%.

Andy told me to go ahead and change and color it. I should probably do that.

If i understand large map must be biger betwen 9-33% then smaller map,its these correct?

qwert wrote:

Coleman
Cartography Ass.


Joined: 03 Jan 2007
Posts: 3187
Location: Omaha (Nebraska, USA)
Posted: 09 Nov 2007 19:12 Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We're going to change the rule, you won that. But we still need a way to require that large maps be noticeably larger than their small maps. And if people need specifics we can come back with the 9-33%.

Andy told me to go ahead and change and color it. I should probably do that.

If i understand large map must be biger betwen 9-33% then smaller map,its these correct?

yes.

No a large map can be more than 33% larger than the small map as long as it isn't larger than the max map size.

Coleman wrote:No a large map can be more than 33% larger than the small map as long as it isn't larger than the max map size.

woot? i thought large map must be between 9% and 33.33% larger than small map. or at least that's what i understood from your calculator.

in fact here's a quote from you:

Coleman wrote:
The new size rule has been adjusted to this: "Large maps must be noticably larger than their small map, if you must have specifics 9% larger is required, but 33.3% is recommended."

developmental rule
A large map must be noticably larger than their small map, if you must have specifics 9% larger is required but 33.3% (1/3rd) is recommended.

aim become very confuse.
If i read good,9% is required that large map be biger than smaller.
From WM table you can se that crossword have 70% biger large map then small,but hes apply rule of 800x600 dimension.

DiM wrote:in fact here's a quote from you:

Coleman wrote:
The new size rule has been adjusted to this: "Large maps must be noticably larger than their small map, if you must have specifics 9% larger is required, but 33.3% is recommended."

Yes 33.3% is the ideal amount, you can go over or under it...

spiesr wrote:

DiM wrote:in fact here's a quote from you:

Coleman wrote:
The new size rule has been adjusted to this: "Large maps must be noticably larger than their small map, if you must have specifics 9% larger is required, but 33.3% is recommended."

Yes 33.3% is the ideal amount, you can go over or under it...

huh.. you're probably right

But lower frontier is 9% what is required for large map.

DiM wrote:

spiesr wrote:Yes 33.3% is the ideal amount, you can go over or under it...

huh.. you're absolutely right

Edited.

qwert wrote:But lower frontier is 9% what is required for large map.

If we don't harass you about the size assume you are fine.

That said, it must be at least 9% larger. We would like 33.3% but you don't have to and in some cases that would go over the max size.

Coleman wrote:

qwert wrote:But lower frontier is 9% what is required for large map.

If we don't harass you about the size assume you are fine.

That said, it must be at least 9% larger. We would like 33.3% but you don't have to and in some cases that would go over the max size.

i'm exactly 33.33% bigger on large version both in AoM and in AoR. hooray for me

ummm i know what i would like to see, is that being the map size and it not counting the legend, legend can have its own size and be able if chose to keep it the same size in small or large or fit it in the map up to the map maker
working with 9% to 33% is fine with me, has for scrolling i have to any way and i know there are a few cc members that have to do it has well

WL_southerner wrote:ummm i know what i would like to see, is that being the map size and it not counting the legend, legend can have its own size and be able if chose to keep it the same size in small or large or fit it in the map up to the map maker
working with 9% to 33% is fine with me, has for scrolling i have to any way and i know there are a few cc members that have to do it has well

nope the legend can't be separate. imagine i make a normal 600*600px small map and then add a 2000*2000 legend on it

it could work if you put limits on the legend
example small 600x600 plus legend say 10 x50
large 800 x 800 plus legend say 20 x 100
or large 800 x 800 plus legend 10 x50
let the map maker chose whitch how he wants to do it weather to use a legend in side the map or out side the map
it make it that little bit easyer for the map maker to work on the map then if he got room he can put in to the map or out side the map

WL_southerner wrote:it could work if you put limits on the legend
example small 600x600 plus legend say 10 x50
large 800 x 800 plus legend say 20 x 100
or large 800 x 800 plus legend 10 x50
let the map maker chose whitch how he wants to do it weather to use a legend in side the map or out side the map

even if you put a restriction on the legend. it will still get to some pretty big maps. 800*800 map plus a 20*100 legend. would not only look bad because the legend will form a rectangle on the outside but it would also stretch the required space beyond the current guidelines.

that was just an example idea i think it could work
you could put the legend left or right side or top or bottom, it would help in way that you make the map first then see how much room you got left then you could decide where it would look best with out trying to cram it all in

I think we could handle legends on a case by case basis. The only real enforcement here is making sure we have a noticeably larger map for every small map made. The exact amounts are given so we have something to quote if necessary.

I'm sure we have many people in the foundry that can tell what the right resize for a map would be so we don't have to pull this rule out of the box too often. Lots and lots of rules are bad, we don't like adding rules.

New is kind of a misnomer here, as we have always had a rule that a noticeably larger map for a small map is required, we have just never had to say it before now. This is not a new standard we will rigidly enforce, except for the 9% and we hope that is barely necessary.

so is the new crossword exempt?