The Discussion on Map Size (Decision on Pg 1 & 11)

[Marvaddin]

It seems to me that the standards for what gets forged/quenched recently dropped at this site.

This is something that I sadly agree. Maybe I should return my job of ironic posts about retard ideas
Oh, and of course return to the continents discussion on each map... looks like some guys will never understand how to do a playable map, lol.

Dont worry, oaktown, the standards will drop more. Did you see the China map that is in final forge? Or the Prision Riot map?

And to stay on topic... if people plays what they want and like, I dont still understand why we shouldnt have big maps. Im not wanting to put the discussion on size as more important than the playability or graphics... but I cant understand the size restrictions.

[mibi]

It seems to me that the standards for what gets forged/quenched recently dropped at this site.

This is something that I sadly agree. Maybe I should return my job of ironic posts about retard ideas
Oh, and of course return to the continents discussion on each map... looks like some guys will never understand how to do a playable map, lol.

I dunno, I think the standards have improved...

2006

2007

2012

doodle earth not included

[oaktown]

standards of maps: I'd say overall the maps are better than when I joined last December. Folks like Keyogi and Widowmakers have raised the bar of what is achievable graphically. But as the ceilings goes up the floor isn't, so the range of quality is greater - the worst map in the Final Forge process is far worse than the best map.

And whle China isn't the worst map I've ever seen, I still hate the fact that the 21st centtury Red Army somehow can't get around a 2,000 year old, crumbling pile of rocks (great wall).

I pointed this out in a thread about map size because, and I'm repeating myself, a big map can suck just as much as a small map. I'd hate to see this site falling into the trap of accepting a map just because it's big and big is somehow cool.

Yes, I'd like to see larger maps, but I'll nod to the wishes of the site administrators. There are probably many reasons why it's better to keep map size small, one of which may be server demand. We've all been at this site when it slows to a crawl... imagine if the packets were four times their current size because the maps are 1200x800 instead of 600x400.

[DiM]

standards of maps: I'd say overall the maps are better than when I joined last December. Folks like Keyogi and Widowmakers have raised the bar of what is achievable graphically. But as the ceilings goes up the floor isn't, so the range of quality is greater - the worst map in the Final Forge process is far worse than the best map.

some people have good graphic skills and some have great graphic skills. you can't expect all of them to have the same level. as long as that worst map that you speak of is still looking decent i'm perfectly ok with it. if we were to act according to your judgment it would mean that only one guy would produce maps the guy that has the best graphic skills. that's wrong. my AoM map is probably not that good looking and i'll probably never have mibi's skill after all he's a graphic designer he earns his living by doing this while i learned fireworks and photoshop here. you can't compare professional work with amateur work but as long as AoM looks decent and i think it does i don't see a problem.

And whle China isn't the worst map I've ever seen, I still hate the fact that the 21st centtury Red Army somehow can't get around a 2,000 year old, crumbling pile of rocks (great wall).

this is for gameplay reasons and has been debated over and over.
again your judgment is kinda wrong, realism is not everything if it were then the whole game would have to be redesigned. i can't believe a 21st century army that's 10 times bigger than his opponent can still lose (10v1 dice rolls losses).

I pointed this out in a thread about map size because, and I'm repeating myself, a big map can suck just as much as a small map. I'd hate to see this site falling into the trap of accepting a map just because it's big and big is somehow cool.

nobody said that big is cool and all maps are made primarily with the gameplay in mind. graphics are just a bonus. i don't play circus maximus despite it's graphics because the gameplay sucks. same goes for chinese checkers or us senate. it's a matter of taste.

Yes, I'd like to see larger maps, but I'll nod to the wishes of the site administrators. There are probably many reasons why it's better to keep map size small, one of which may be server demand. We've all been at this site when it slows to a crawl... imagine if the packets were four times their current size because the maps are 1200x800 instead of 600x400.

server demand. yes that indeed could be a problem but let's not forget the size limits are from more than a year ago. how much have the servers evolved in the past year?

[hulmey]

So it is not really a distaste for large maps, it is a concern that only large maps will be built and small will go away. Lack does not want that. That is why there are currently size restrictions.

this age old idea...But lets give people choice...Lack is very choice on giving this to the people who play here. So let the people choose if they want to play on big or small maps....Currently there are 40 maps out there and they are all small!!! So i dont have a choice in what i am able to play and it is dictated to me by the site owner!!

2007 pull your fingers out and lets scroll becuase to me and many others its worth it!!!

Ps...You have to respond to the supply and demand and move with the future..maybe large maps could be available to premium's only!!

[oaktown]

Hey, I'm with you, DiM, and at the bottom of this post I actually have a proposal. You and I may never throw a map together that's as clean or polished as something that Widowmakers does, but that doesn't mean that we don't have something to contribute.

Here's an example of what I'm worried about:

would you play world 3.0 even if the size would exceed the guidelines?
YES. anything for realism and more terits.
NO. rules should be respected even if it means no world 3.0

While I'd be happy to see some larger maps, I'm not prepared to say that we should do "anything for realism and more terits." For instance, I'm not prepared to play a map that isn't well thought out or fun just because it's big.

Perhaps there should be a third option in this poll: "MAYBE. Show me a big map that plays well and I'm on board." Because bigger isn't necessarily better.

I'd say AoM is a good map. Not because it is stunningly beautiful (which it isn't, though it looks just fine), and not because it is big (which it isn't), but because the game play is unique.

Here's my suggestion: the concern seems to be that if we're given the option to go better everybody will do so. So maybe what is needed is a subforum within the Foundry for oversized maps? These maps would follow a stricter Foundry process: a longer incubation time, more feedback, have to meet more guidelines, etc.

[DiM]

Here's an example of what I'm worried about:

would you play world 3.0 even if the size would exceed the guidelines?
YES. anything for realism and more terits.
NO. rules should be respected even if it means no world 3.0

While I'd be happy to see some larger maps, I'm not prepared to say that we should do "anything for realism and more terits." For instance, I'm not prepared to play a map that isn't well thought out or fun just because it's big.

Perhaps there should be a third option in this poll: "MAYBE. Show me a big map that plays well and I'm on board." Because bigger isn't necessarily better.

that poll is made strictly for the size issue. of course the gameplay will be perfect don't think i'll just throw a bunch of terits and it will be quenched. no the bonuses will be discussed and adjusted the various features like nato or commonwealth will be also well balanced, etc. the gameplay hasn't even been discussed because there's no image yet and the reason that there's no image is because i don't want to waste my time only to realize it will never be accepted due to size restrictions. so the poll should have been something like this:

Would you play world 3.0 (which will have ~200 terits a perfectly balanced gameplay and stunning graphics) even if it exceeds the size limits?

YES
NO

I'd say AoM is a good map. Not because it is stunningly beautiful (which it isn't, though it looks just fine), and not because it is big (which it isn't), but because the game play is unique.

AoM was never meant to be stunningly beautiful or at least not in the way most people perceive it. for me it is one of the most beautiful maps along with middle east simply because i like that semi monochrome style. i don't like colorful maps unless we're talking about landscapes (like siege or circus maximus)

Here's my suggestion: the concern seems to be that if we're given the option to go better everybody will do so. So maybe what is needed is a subforum within the Foundry for oversized maps? These maps would follow a stricter Foundry process: a longer incubation time, more feedback, have to meet more guidelines, etc.

i agree with this subforum idea. it would be good

[KEYOGI]

what negatives? please explain them, maybe we can come up with a solution.

There are a number of issues, and it would all depend on which method of a third map size would be chosen if it ever did happen.

I put the idea of Super Sized maps before Lack, Andy and others about a month ago with perhaps a similar system to that oaktown suggested. However, it was decided that there should always be two versions of a map, a small and a large. The reasons for this have been argued by Twill and others in this very thread and I don't particularly feel like going over them agin.

So, with the idea of an exclusively big map put to rest we've considered having three map sizes as well, but this is a huge ask for the cartographers to produce three versions of a map. I also think it would be an impossible task to get the larger maps to work at a small size. We're not willing to sacrifice the quality of small maps just to include bigger maps, remember Lack's small map stat.

Basically there is no simple solution, sacrifices are going to have to be made for larger maps to be incorporated at any point. This might involve changes to the site design, changes to map size guidelines or any number of other ideas.

Lack has put map sizes on his to-do list and there will be an announcement at somepoint with more details.

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

Now, to discuss the quality of maps lately I tend to agree with oaktown.

Not every map is a piece of fine art, and there's no need for it to be either. All Andy, myself and the foundry expect is a high level of quality in certain areas. We want clear text, borders, army circles and so on that aren't pixelated or blurry, too small or too large. Colour and texture choice are also important, but in no way is it expected of cartographers to reproduce the masterpiece efforts of WidowMakers.

We have revamps successfully cleaning up some of the uglier maps, but I feel the need for these is slowly coming to a close with only a small number of maps really in need of them.

But all these pretty graphics are worth naught when we don't have the gameplay to back them up. We have some really interesting new maps like AoM and VoTK, both I may never play, but I do appreciate the different gameplay offered up. Revamps aside, none of the newer maps (even those in Final Forge) really hold my interest. Italy and Malta are probably the only two maps I really look forward to and they've been in development for nine months!

I think maybe gameplay is getting lost in the pretty graphics and crazy new game concepts that are coming out. The more distinctive the gameplay style, the harder it is for everyone to grasp the concept easily. It's often not a straight up case of borders and bonuses anymore.

[KEYOGI]

Currently there are 40 maps out there and they are all small!!! So i dont have a choice in what i am able to play and it is dictated to me by the site owner!!

I don't know how you judge map size, but territories is what it should come down to. With that in mind I would say any map with 36 or less territories is small, 42-54 medium and 60+ large. Perhaps 100+ would be considered huge, I don't know, but I definately think we have a good variation in map sizes available.

[DiM]

what negatives? please explain them, maybe we can come up with a solution.

There are a number of issues, and it would all depend on which method of a third map size would be chosen if it ever did happen.

I put the idea of Super Sized maps before Lack, Andy and others about a month ago with perhaps a similar system to that oaktown suggested. However, it was decided that there should always be two versions of a map, a small and a large. The reasons for this have been argued by Twill and others in this very thread and I don't particularly feel like going over them agin.

So, with the idea of an exclusively big map put to rest we've considered having three map sizes as well, but this is a huge ask for the cartographers to produce three versions of a map. I also think it would be an impossible task to get the larger maps to work at a small size. We're not willing to sacrifice the quality of small maps just to include bigger maps, remember Lack's small map stat.

Basically there is no simple solution, sacrifices are going to have to be made for larger maps to be incorporated at any point. This might involve changes to the site design, changes to map size guidelines or any number of other ideas.

Lack has put map sizes on his to-do list and there will be an announcement at somepoint with more details.

making 3 sizes clearly won't work. it impossible to resize a huge map to fit the current small size standards. but what about my idea of making 3 categories of maps. perhaps i haven't explained clear enough.

so when we start a new game we have 3 categories
1. optimized for 800*600 or larger
2. optimized for 1024*768 or larger
3. optimized for 1280*1024 or larger

in each category we'll find maps with 2 versions small and large. for example in the first category the guides would be max 600*350 for small and max 800*600 for large. in the second category you'll have max 630*600 for small and 840*800 for large and in the third 840*800 for small and 1050*1000 for large. if you click on the first category only the maps in that category are displayed. if you click on the second category you can see the maps in the first 2 categories and if you click on the third you can see all maps.

this means that map makers still have to do 2 versions small and large but now they can address to a certain category of players and follow the respective size guidelines.

Now, to discuss the quality of maps lately I tend to agree with oaktown.

Not every map is a piece of fine art, and there's no need for it to be either. All Andy, myself and the foundry expect is a high level of quality in certain areas. We want clear text, borders, army circles and so on that aren't pixelated or blurry, too small or too large. Colour and texture choice are also important, but in no way is it expected of cartographers to reproduce the masterpiece efforts of WidowMakers.

We have revamps successfully cleaning up some of the uglier maps, but I feel the need for these is slowly coming to a close with only a small number of maps really in need of them.

But all these pretty graphics are worth naught when we don't have the gameplay to back them up. We have some really interesting new maps like AoM and VoTK, both I may never play, but I do appreciate the different gameplay offered up. Revamps aside, none of the newer maps (even those in Final Forge) really hold my interest. Italy and Malta are probably the only two maps I really look forward to and they've been in development for nine months!

I think maybe gameplay is getting lost in the pretty graphics and crazy new game concepts that are coming out. The more distinctive the gameplay style, the harder it is for everyone to grasp the concept easily. It's often not a straight up case of borders and bonuses anymore.

yes maps with more complicated gameplay are beginning to be more often proposed. i don't see this as a fall in quality i only see it as an attempt to satisfy a niche of players. the players that seek a new challenge. yes some or most of the people won't play them but they still have 40 other maps with simple classic style gameplay. if we all made maps that had the classic recipe don't you think some flavor would be lost? i know players that now consider AoM to be their favorite map simply because of the new concept it brought up. is that a drop in quality?
of course many people still have no idea how to play AoM but as i said they have 40 other maps to choose from.

[Qwert]

oaktown wrote:
Here's my suggestion: the concern seems to be that if we're given the option to go better everybody will do so. So maybe what is needed is a subforum within the Foundry for oversized maps? These maps would follow a stricter Foundry process: a longer incubation time, more feedback, have to meet more guidelines, etc.

i agree with this subforum idea. it would be good

These is great idea

[Qwert]

so when we start a new game we have 3 categories
1. optimized for 800*600 or larger
2. optimized for 1024*768 or larger
3. optimized for 1280*1024 or larger

in each category we'll find maps with 2 versions small and large. for example in the first category the guides would be max 600*350 for small and max 800*600 for large. in the second category you'll have max 630*600 for small and 840*800 for large and in the third 840*800 for small and 1050*1000 for large. if you click on the first category only the maps in that category are displayed. if you click on the second category you can see the maps in the first 2 categories and if you click on the third you can see all maps.

this means that map makers still have to do 2 versions small and large but now they can address to a certain category of players and follow the respective size guidelines.

Very interesting sugestion.

[DiM]

Currently there are 40 maps out there and they are all small!!! So i dont have a choice in what i am able to play and it is dictated to me by the site owner!!

I don't know how you judge map size, but territories is what it should come down to. With that in mind I would say any map with 36 or less territories is small, 42-54 medium and 60+ large. Perhaps 100+ would be considered huge, I don't know, but I definately think we have a good variation in map sizes available.

yes we have variation ranging from 18 terits (doodle earth) to 113 (world 2.1) but the point is the only really large map is world 2.1
the next one judging by terit number is battle for australia at 66 terits (not sure) so basically we have just 1 map over 66 terits world 2.1.
people crave for huge maps and world 2.1 is not enough. we need more maps like that.

also one curious fact is that the only map over 67 terits is also the only map that breaks the size rules. could this be an indicator that is almost impossible to fit some many terits in such a small space? could this mean we'll never see big maps unless the size restrictions are revised?

[KEYOGI]

Ok, we were going to wait for the announcement, but we might as well set the record straight now, there's not much point delaying the decision on map sizes since there are a number of maps waiting for official confirmation before moving forward.

Taking account everything that has been said in this thread, the discussions between myself, Andy, Lack and others... the decision is:

• There will be no change to map size guidelines at present.
• Following the introduction of 8 player games, we will gauge the need for maps with more territories.
• If there's a shortage of maps suitable for 8 player games, we will reconsider this whole situation then.

I know a lot of people aren't going to be happy about that decision, but it has been made with the whole site and community in mind, not just the foundry or cartographers. I have my own ideas that could benefit from bigger map sizes, but like any other large map idea out there at the moment, they will have to wait.

World 2.1 is being updated to conform to size guidelines, with the new version hopefully being available soon.

If it ever comes to a point where we need bigger map sizes, we can discuss the method in greater detail then. The current map guidelines allow for adequate map designs suitable for 6 players, so the benefit of larger maps is outweighed by the negatives at this point. This is the opinion of Lack, Andy and myself.

So, this really should be the end of discussion. I understand why some people want bigger maps, but any map in development that exceeds the size guidelines will either have to work to fit within current guidelines or go on vacation until the guidelines are potentially updated.

I encourage people to continue discussing map sizes and the issues surrounding the guidelines, but please don't just come into this thread to complain about the decision, it's only going to fall on deaf ears.

Remember, changes to map sizes are on Lack's to-do list, so while there are no immediate changes, it is being considered for the future.

[hulmey]

one word : boooooooooooooooooooooo

[Marvaddin]

I dunno, I think the standards have improved...

Sure, if graphs were the single aspect of the maps. What I really hate, much more than an ugly map, is a map with poor playability. But dont worry, mibi, Im sure you can beat the disappointment caused by Chinese Checkers with this Prison thing, well, maybe even beat Circus Maximus if you really try.

Keyogi, I understand some people dislike scrolling down, but whats the problem if people that dont care about scroll down play a bigger map? Isnt "dont like it, dont play it" the main rule about maps and community? Just wondering...

[WidowMakers]

Keyogi, I understand some people dislike scrolling down, but whats the problem if people that dont care about scroll down play a bigger map? Isnt "dont like it, dont play it" the main rule about maps and community? Just wondering...

It is not that those people care to scroll down on a bigger map, it is that the bigger map cannot be shrunk down to fit into a smaller map that does NOT require scrolling.

Again, BIG maps are NOT bad.

It is that the content in a Really BIG map cannot fit into a small map. And Lack wants small maps for ALL maps.

[gimil]

Keyogi, I understand some people dislike scrolling down, but whats the problem if people that dont care about scroll down play a bigger map? Isnt "dont like it, dont play it" the main rule about maps and community? Just wondering...

It is not that those people care to scroll down on a bigger map, it is that the bigger map cannot be shrunk down to fit into a smaller map that does NOT require scrolling.

Again, BIG maps are NOT bad.

It is that the content in a Really BIG map cannot fit into a small map. And Lack wants small maps for ALL maps.

My personal stance on the discussion is this:

All maps are required to stay withinthe 600px limit. However maps with high support and a REAL need for the extra space should be discussed in lenght and a happy compremise should be met.

[unriggable]

so when we start a new game we have 3 categories
1. optimized for 800*600 or larger
2. optimized for 1024*768 or larger
3. optimized for 1280*1024 or larger

in each category we'll find maps with 2 versions small and large. for example in the first category the guides would be max 600*350 for small and max 800*600 for large. in the second category you'll have max 630*600 for small and 840*800 for large and in the third 840*800 for small and 1050*1000 for large. if you click on the first category only the maps in that category are displayed. if you click on the second category you can see the maps in the first 2 categories and if you click on the third you can see all maps.

this means that map makers still have to do 2 versions small and large but now they can address to a certain category of players and follow the respective size guidelines.

Very interesting sugestion.

Most every map would require a revisit though to fit these standards.

I think some maps should just be like "its large all the time, take it or leave it" like the Troy idea that went around for a bit.

[hulmey]

Lack is generally good at having his pulse on what the lpayers of CC and im afraid i think you can all acknowlegde this time he has got it wrong!!!

At least lets have 2 large maps scruntised compeletly and more say given directly to Lack and Andy rather than the map foundry....So that 2 large maps are made for the communtiy to play on with outstanding graphics and gameplay...

People want to play on large maps...There is a demand for large maps!! Hell make it for premiums only so that new players dont have to scroll down....Im sure then that lack wont lose custom but gain more followers with people who like large maps.....

[DiM]

Taking account everything that has been said in this thread, the discussions between myself, Andy, Lack and others... the decision is:

• There will be no change to map size guidelines at present.

i HATE you

Following the introduction of 8 player games, we will gauge the need for maps with more territories.

If there's a shortage of maps suitable for 8 player games, we will reconsider this whole situation then.

how will you know if there is a shortage of 8 player maps?
8 players can even play on doodle earth so it's easy to say the current maps are enough when actually an 8 player map should have 64-80 terits for a medium sized battle and 80+ for really interesting battles

at this point we have world 2.1 and us senate that are good for 8 players. battle for australia would be good also but it has so many initial neutrals it can't be feasible

World 2.1 is being updated to conform to size guidelines, with the new version hopefully being available soon.

i'm curious how this will be done. if you're talking about a simple resize and then adjusting the circles and names you'll get a very cluttered and crappy looking image. i'm talking about the small version because the large will be ok.

world 2.1 small already has areas that are hard to see and would be unacceptable in today's standards. look at italy name or at the nigeria name. they don't fit and are hard to see. not to mention some areas barely fit the army circle.

as i said i'm very curious how this will be done. who's doing it? zim?

[Qwert]

Now, Andy and myself have been and will continue to be a little lenient with width. A map should be designed to fit the width of 600px for the small map, and 800px for the large map. However, if the space is really needed we will allow a small map width of 630px, and a large map width of 840px. This really is only to be used for a desperate scenario though, so please don't abuse our kindness and generosity.

If i understan you will alove to small version be 630x600 and large 840x800,so do your job and give warning to all map authors not to me only.

[Coleman]

I think the whole thing is bollocks really.

World 2.1 exists. It is much larger then their requirements. Until World 2.1 is revamped to fit the requirements or removed from the site I can't take these size requirements very seriously.

I am willing to accept that World 2.1 is an extreme case. However, it should not remain the only 'epic' map. I think we have enough normal sized ones we are due for 1 or 2 more epic maps.

[AndyDufresne]

World 2.1 is being REVAMPed, and the finished product up within the next couple of days/week, or so.


--Andy

[Wisse]

seems i have to find a solution for my zelda map (twilight princes) wich is gonna be to big

but andy is there some problem with the size of my china map? the height is to large