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

[mibi]

Alright, to make it a discussion, let me add another side to the conversation.

Seeing as this is the Foundry where primarily designers hang out, and few of "the rest" of us come, we are seeing a very one sided debate which is over what the *designers* want (primarily) : to have a free reign over what they design, clearly without the usability of those of us unable to own that fancy widescreen monitor (and really, that was just a silly argument to say people should just go buy monitors so someone can design a large map...really, it was)

Conquer club is not only a site for playing fantastically cool maps (which it is) but it is also a site about community (one reason why Lack opened the Foundry). That community contains people from all walks of life, and all ranges of technology. I for one do not own a large, high res monitor and if you were to make these super large maps I would not be able to play them. Now this is not just me, this is 88% of the stable community (only 12% choose to use large map sizes). 88% of people *prefer* to use the small map size, now this could be for many reasons, but most probably it is because the large map requires scrolling and people choose the ease of not having to scroll.

To add to that, in the time I have been here (I've been around a while) the number of times I have heard people comment on not wanting to play a map because they have to scroll, bitch about having to scroll, complain about the scrolling (note the negative emphasis I'm giving the scrolling thing) and how scrolling detracts from the playability (usability) of a map leads me to think that larger maps are not only not often used, but are considered a pain in the ass and not played as much, even if they are great maps.

If, as seems to be the trend (88% of people choosing not to scroll), people would not play (or more importantly are unable to play) a map because it falls into the "HUGE" category, that would seem to defeat the sense of community which we have tried so hard to create together at this site. If you are actively segregating the community into those who cannot play certain maps and those who can, well now that just sucks. And what if designers, in the effort to create "that perfect map" forget that the perfect map might not be one that has so many territories that it takes a whole year to finish (which in itself sometimes turns people away from it), and perhaps that smaller maps like the brit isles are just as good, and sometimes better than, maps like world 2.0.

Yes, the idea of a 100 territory map sounds great, but not one that 88% of people wont play because they have to scroll and it takes too damn long to play. and if 100 territory maps are allowed now, what next, where does it stop? why not a 300 territory map, 500, 1000...at what point does a map really get too large.

A site like this relies on playability. Simple, easily accessible, easily usable playability. We are not FarCry which needs the latest and greatest to play, we are a casual gaming community and if you, as designers, forget about us, the techno-poor, then there is something wrong with the way the designs are going, in my humble opinion.

So, discussion or no about the logic behind the no-massive-maps, consider this the start of a discussion on the usability prospect of such a large map and perhaps reconsider the bigger-is-better logic you are applying to maps.

Game designers would LOVE to build games that are fully 3D immersive with 120fps at all times, infinate clipping distances, massive polygon counts, hundreds of hours of shakesperean content and direct motion capture controls...but nobody's going to play it because it's not going to work on most machines.

If it's not easily playable, it's not fun, if it's not fun, then people wont play it, if people don't play, people don't come, it people don't come, Lack doesn't make money, if Lack doesn't make money then he has NO chance of getting laid.

so, help Lack get laid: make maps that are usable so that lots of people with lots of different machines can use his site, get sucked into a great community, stick around for a long time and pay him money so he can impress the girls with his really big...site

just something to think about (the discussion, not Lack getting laid)

Can we dispel this ridiculous 88% figure that lack cited and everyone latches on to?

Small is the DEFAULT when a player joins CC. How many players are unaware that they can even change that setting. And how many new users don't even play a single game or deadbeat after 1 game and all have their setting on the DEFAULT small map. To say that 12% of the community chooses to play large maps is simply wrong. Perhaps Lack could change the default to the large map and then the tables would turn entirely.

So let us stop using this meaningless statistic thank you.

[mibi]

I suspect that in many cases, if your map is too awesome to fit within the guidelines, then maybe it might actually be a better map if it were a little less awesome.

Then perhaps we should take 30 territories away from World 2.0 so we can shrink it, because right now, I think its a bit too awesome.

[Twill]

<edit> shit, sorry, this is a really long post. I do appologize. there is a question towards the end, I'd appreciate it if DiM especially but also anyone else, would answer it for me to help me understand better</edit>

Can we dispel this ridiculous 88% figure that lack cited and everyone latches on to?
So let us stop using this meaningless statistic thank you.

It's not a meaningless stat mate.

that is the number of stable players (those who play after the 35% drop rate of new recruits is taken into account)

And you have to admit, it's pretty hard to miss the links to the big map/small map on the right hand side. let me see if I can get stats on people who try the large option and go back, but either way, if we assume that most people have tried the large map and gone back to the small map, or we assume that people know they can change to a larger map (because the link is right there and very obvious on every map) but dont, then that possibly says either people are prefering the smaller map, or just dont need the larger version of it. Either way, it suggests that there needs to be a small version of a map.
And yes, before you point out the obvious, I know I am making an assumption, but without lack this is the best common sense assumption I can think of.

and anyway, does it matter if people are choosing it or not? the fact is that they are PLAYING on small maps, if the small map option dissapears for certain maps, or is unplayable because someone tried to squeeze too much in there, then that is 88% of the site going "uhhh, what happened" just because that is what they are playing on.

Now to DiM's comments:

twill said that if my big map is quenched it will make him feel bad because of exclusivity. i ask him what he feels about world 2.1?

I like the map, but I would not be able to play it if there was not the small option. It bugs me that I have to scroll to see the info on the menu side of things but I don't have to scroll to see the whole map in a window at once, so I can live with it. Again, only on small size.

world 2.1 has created a precedent and the mods have to deal with the problem they have caused.

exactly, this is what I was saying, larger maps create precedents where people will then come and say "this map got extra pixels and I now have the right to demand that I be allowed to do it"
a) who are you to demand anything. The foundry was a great thing that Lack opened up to allow people to add to the site, he didn't have to, it has caused lots of headaches for a lot of people and can be taken away at any time. People asked if they could add maps, Lack said they could if they kept to certain guidelines, within which they could do most anything they want. This is not something that you have a RIGHT to, it's not part of any premium package, you didnt PAY for the foundry, so stop this dilusion that you can demand anything.
b)The mods are dealing with it. They said World 2.1 was a mistake, and that it wouldn't happen again. to say that there are only 3 solutions is very one sided. Might I suggest a 4th option

• keep world 2.1 and don't make any more maps that size

2 wrongs don't make a right so to speak.

and a question for the mods. the world 2.1 was revamped from 2.0 in the current guidelines and none of you complained.

I'd suggest that is wasn't a problem until the "small group of 6 people" came along and started kicking up dust about wanting rediculously large maps that "cannot fit in anything smaller"

I'd argue that this debate isn't over massive maps, this is about the small map - despite what people think I have no problem with large maps, none, not a single bit - what I have a problem with is people saying that they want to make maps that are so large they cannot fit in the small size in a playable manner.

I'd say make your large maps, I'd love to play some of the really cool ideas out there, but if and only if they fit into the small boundaries as well. Your map designs cannot neglect a very significant proportion of this site who (whether you think its a bogus stat or not) choose or just by default play on small maps.

<the question>
Bigger is not better, there is a trend in the foundry which seems to slowly be moving towards larger maps. I dont understand this - just because there are more territories does not make a map better. Why can you not make a map with the same or similar dynamics with fewer territories?
I have to admit I have not looked in depth at the maps which are requesting super-size-me dimensions and so I am asking for someone to explain to reasoning behind needing these super large maps.
I havn't seen anyone come up with a reason for needing these massive maps other than "because I want it" "because it wont fit on smaller" "because world 2.1 is that size" or "because it would be cool"
What is the advantage, to the site, the playerbase and the future of the game by adding in maps that just have more territories?? Is there a new great gameplay dynamic created, do you need the extra territories to acomplish something in particular or is it just to have more territories?
I don't really understand and this is an honest question because I would like to understand.

Now, Hulmey and Coleman,

This isn't about whether I am a commie, if malta has lots of cars or if I know how to change the resolution. Comments like those are just pointless spam and don't serve any purpose other than to make you look petty.
If you can't come up with a "rebuttal" other than maltese communists then perhaps you have in fact, run out of rebuttals and should stay out of it.
Contribute meaningfully or stay out of it, you do nobody a service by adding pointless comments. (just sayin is all, would love to have you stay in the debate, but keep it on topic pretty please)

[mibi]

exactly, this is what I was saying, larger maps create precedents where people will then come and say "this map got extra pixels and I now have the right to demand that I be allowed to do it"
a) who are you to demand anything. The foundry was a great thing that Lack opened up to allow people to add to the site, he didn't have to, it has caused lots of headaches for a lot of people and can be taken away at any time. People asked if they could add maps, Lack said they could if they kept to certain guidelines, within which they could do most anything they want. This is not something that you have a RIGHT to, it's not part of any premium package, you didnt PAY for the foundry, so stop this dilusion that you can demand anything.

He didn't have to? caused a lot of headaches? can be taken away at time? that's funny. Lack has benefited the most from the foundry as people have volunteered countless hours to make maps for a for-profit website. So while the oh-so-demaning foundry has added worth and value to Lack's site and bank account, and while Lack try's to profit from the sale of products with the foundrys volunteered art, I believe the foundry deserves a bit more respect then you lend it.

Im sure Lack can more than deal with the 'headaches' the come out this forum in return for the often under appreciated work that we do. Instead we get treated like whiny children who have no course for redress. So forgive us for our demands, it surely is, as is all the work we do, in the best interest of the community.

[hulmey]

Mr.Twill the small group of 6 players that you seem to be bashing are the most active foundry members in the foundry. This one little thing were you have slipped up just shows me that your not subjective at all in your reasoning.

Also there are 2 polls now on going in the General discussion's are. One of them clearly shows that CC players are mixed in wether they choose the Large or Small map to play on it.

Also another poll is clearly showing that in 2007 nobody has a monitor less than 14"!! Wow!!

Map maker's dont want to make huge maps that you have to never endingly scroll down to play. All they want is that little extra room to put a few more countries in like the World 2.1 has or to show a little extra detail in their map (like Mibi's).

Anyway if they made these maps...Then who would play on them?? Fact remains apart from Classic (which is the first default and most popular map due to it being a knock off from the board game) that World 2.1 is the most popular map. So all this nonsense that large maps wont be played on is pure nonsense.

On a ending note i dont think we can ever really truly find out what people play on purley by lack's statistics of what people are choosing due to alot of missing data. Ie , what type of monitor they have and what resoultionthey have.

On another ending note, Lack has a great site and it has moved forward it a very professional manner and one of those foundations is the Map foundry churning out great maps to play on. So please lets give credit to these people who have made conquer club what it is. With out them we would not have this great site. That maybe something to think about before you childishly post "well its lacks site, so there".

[Twill]

Guys, I am not bashing anyone, I think the ideas that come out of the foundry are great, and yes, it has added a LOT to this site and will continue to make it great, but there are certain things which are needed to make sure that there is some sort of continuity accross maps and accross experiences.

And sure, Conquerclub has benefited a HUGE deal from the foundry but the fact remains that the site serves more people than just those creating maps in the foundry, no? The owner's responsibility to the community is to ensure that the most people possible can play on the site, and that means ensuring that people can easily use the maps.

Nobody is trating you like whiny children. All they are saying is that you can't make maps that can't fit easily on a large number of screens and you guys are the ones making a fuss about it.

Hulmey, sadly polls are notoriously inaccurate because there is, in general accross most sites like this one, only about 20% of a community who actually read and participate on the forum - 82 people is hardly representative of a community of 128455 users now is it? And as to nobody having anything smaller than 14 inchs? wow, guess what, I do. I use a 12 inch laptop. Perhaps that is why I am posting here - perhaps it is a hugely selfish motive, but there you have it.
Now, the statistics that Lack can provide come from the entire active userbase, those stats don't lie - really, they dont. He has no reason to make this stuff up, he can't fiddle them too much, and he is simply reporting what map size the server serves up to each player. 88% small maps served, regardless of polls.

Now, again, I come back to ask the same question, why do you need mega maps and if you did make them, could you squeeze them playably into a small format as well? It's a really simple question, the answer to which may shut me up or turn me into an ally, but until you do, I'm still not going to understand why the need for the mega maps. That's all.

Oh, and hulmey, the group o' 6 was not my picking, it was something I was borrowing from Coleman a couple posts back, and I ask you to point to where I "bashed" anyone. I'm merely disagreeing with you, hardly bashing you.

[DiM]

Now to DiM's comments:

twill said that if my big map is quenched it will make him feel bad because of exclusivity. i ask him what he feels about world 2.1?

I like the map, but I would not be able to play it if there was not the small option. It bugs me that I have to scroll to see the info on the menu side of things but I don't have to scroll to see the whole map in a window at once, so I can live with it. Again, only on small size.

i request that i am allowed to do a map that has the same size as world 2.1 so if i do that you'll have the same feelings towards it as you have towards world 2.1, right?

world 2.1 has created a precedent and the mods have to deal with the problem they have caused.

exactly, this is what I was saying, larger maps create precedents where people will then come and say "this map got extra pixels and I now have the right to demand that I be allowed to do it"
a) who are you to demand anything. The foundry was a great thing that Lack opened up to allow people to add to the site, he didn't have to, it has caused lots of headaches for a lot of people and can be taken away at any time. People asked if they could add maps, Lack said they could if they kept to certain guidelines, within which they could do most anything they want. This is not something that you have a RIGHT to, it's not part of any premium package, you didnt PAY for the foundry, so stop this dilusion that you can demand anything.
b)The mods are dealing with it. They said World 2.1 was a mistake, and that it wouldn't happen again. to say that there are only 3 solutions is very one sided. Might I suggest a 4th option

• keep world 2.1 and don't make any more maps that size

2 wrongs don't make a right so to speak.

who am i to demand things? i've spent a lot of hours designing maps for this site. hours that have turned into dollars for lack. hours that i could have spent in another way. point is i think all the map makers should have a little more respect and influence because after all what would CC be without all the maps?? so yes i do have the right to demand something that has already been granted to zim the creator of world 2.1.

and a question for the mods. the world 2.1 was revamped from 2.0 in the current guidelines and none of you complained.

I'd suggest that is wasn't a problem until the "small group of 6 people" came along and started kicking up dust about wanting rediculously large maps that "cannot fit in anything smaller"

I'd argue that this debate isn't over massive maps, this is about the small map - despite what people think I have no problem with large maps, none, not a single bit - what I have a problem with is people saying that they want to make maps that are so large they cannot fit in the small size in a playable manner.

I'd say make your large maps, I'd love to play some of the really cool ideas out there, but if and only if they fit into the small boundaries as well. Your map designs cannot neglect a very significant proportion of this site who (whether you think its a bogus stat or not) choose or just by default play on small maps.

the small map of world 2.1 is over the guidelines and the "small group of 6 people" aren't permitted the same thing that was permitted to zim. why was world 2.1 allowed a certain size that is not allowed to others? in the rules of map making it says that any cartographer is obligated to revamp his map in case his work needs it or the map will be removed. well i say world 2.1 needs it because it doesn't meet the guidelines. what do the mods say? world 2.1 stays as it is and all the other cartographers have to either suck it up or leave the foundry. that's not cool.
and yes i want to do a big map and yes it wont fit in the current guidelines but it would certainly fit in the 700*610 that world 2.1 has. and in case you don't realize how big the small map of world 2.1 is let me tell you this. the LARGE map of ireland would fit in the SMALL map of world 2.1 and still have some extra thousand pixels to spare. talk about big and small.

<the question>
Bigger is not better, there is a trend in the foundry which seems to slowly be moving towards larger maps. I dont understand this - just because there are more territories does not make a map better. Why can you not make a map with the same or similar dynamics with fewer territories?
I have to admit I have not looked in depth at the maps which are requesting super-size-me dimensions and so I am asking for someone to explain to reasoning behind needing these super large maps.
I havn't seen anyone come up with a reason for needing these massive maps other than "because I want it" "because it wont fit on smaller" "because world 2.1 is that size" or "because it would be cool"
What is the advantage, to the site, the playerbase and the future of the game by adding in maps that just have more territories?? Is there a new great gameplay dynamic created, do you need the extra territories to acomplish something in particular or is it just to have more territories?
I don't really understand and this is an honest question because I would like to understand.

some time ago i wanted to make a 300 terit map. and had a thread asking people's opinion on this. feel free to use the search function. guess what most of them liked the idea. so there's your answer. people like huge maps that's the perfect reason to make them. do you really think we are making maps with many terits just because one day we woke up and decided to do it? no the people want huge maps with realistic battles so we try to give them that. we can't because the guidelines are applied for some but not for all.

[Jota]

Im sure Lack can more than deal with the 'headaches' the come out this forum in return for the often under appreciated work that we do. Instead we get treated like whiny children who have no course for redress. So forgive us for our demands, it surely is, as is all the work we do, in the best interest of the community.

Perhaps you should force the administration of the site to listen to you the same way that abused workers persuade management to listen to their concerns: by going on strike. You could refuse to do any map development, post to the forums, or contribute to the community in any form until the people in charge finally agree to open a real dialog.

[The1exile]

Im sure Lack can more than deal with the 'headaches' the come out this forum in return for the often under appreciated work that we do. Instead we get treated like whiny children who have no course for redress. So forgive us for our demands, it surely is, as is all the work we do, in the best interest of the community.

Perhaps you should force the administration of the site to listen to you the same way that abused workers persuade management to listen to their concerns: by going on strike. You could refuse to do any map development, post to the forums, or contribute to the community in any form until the people in charge finally agree to open a real dialog.

But as with industrial strikes, it's a last resort, and it damages the entire community by slowing down map production (or, decreasing map quality when unfinished maps get quenched).

[gimil]

but in the long term much better maps with a higher standard and quality ultimately benefits the site. Just a victory for the foundry community would motivate the cartographers in short term which would increase the production for a period of time which may even catch up with the lag created by the strike.

[UCAbears]

From reverend_kyle to Twill.

TWILLDO!...." Stop being a dickface twilldo. "

[DiM]

From reverend_kyle to Twill.

TWILLDO!...." Stop being a dickface twilldo. "

best post in the entire thread.

on a more serious note, is it normal that i feel kinda aroused by the fact that twilldo sounds like dildo?

[hulmey]

Or we could get all players to strike and not play anymore

Would make a interesting thread and there's loads of rebels out there!!

[WidowMakers]

I guess I understand where each side is coming from. The map makers want to make BIG maps ( I would like to do that as well). But the owner of the site wants to have small maps as well (which I feel are also needed).

Like it was said before, many players use the small maps. If a large map can be put into a small size then it is OK. Maybe a suggestion could be made for huge maps as long as a small and large could be made also. The detail in the large and especially the small maps would be lowered, but as long as they are still legible and playable, maybe that could resolve the issue.

I would try to propose this and see what happens.

But after the dust settles and the boss decides, each and every foundry map maker needs to accept the decision and continue on with life.

Plus going on strike does not seem like a real good idea to me. 90% of the CC community (probably more) does not even know who any of us are. What would going on strike do? Not all of the map makers are going to do it so you really will not stop the flow of new maps. But even if we all did, the community has 40+ maps to play now and I am sure it would take quite a while before they are are bored with them.

[hulmey]

As always widow comes across with a level headed and good response. I thik all the map makers and indeed general CC'ers want is to be able to make/play on maps the size of world 2.1.

I think this would be fair enough and would allow for large maps but also not going too over the guidlines.

I think there is a great niche in this market as can be seen from the popularity of the said map.

Maybe Lack would allow for another map like Qwert's or DIM's to be tested just to see if this type of map would be popular?

[mibi]

I dont see the problem with giving choice to play big maps to the actual players instead of the admins or cartographers. Everyone is acting like if big maps are allowed then only big maps will be produced and and players who dont want big maps wont have any maps to play.

Hello? There are already over 40 maps that small map lovers can play. Having the option to play a bigger map will satisfy the players who want to do so. Those who don't want to play a big map ... uh... wont play a big map.

Lack claims he wants the site to be usuable for the 1024x768 crowd. Well what about the 800x600 folks? THey are shut out with unusable maps. So its not about making the site usable for everyone, its about making it usable for a majority, which it already is. About 30-40 of internet users are 1024x768 and that is dwindling. So I think its time CC stops pandering to the minority by holding the majority back.

Once again, no one is forcing anyone to play or not play a map. And lets please not act like scrolling is some horrible torture. For christ sakes, CC is the most click intensive risk clone site on the net. A few more clicks isn't going to ruin anyones day.

[edbeard]

I'd like to know if the people that use small maps mind playing on a map like World 2.1 and/or if they'd mind other maps of that size.

[Jota]

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.

[mibi]

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.

Well whats the harm in not being able to play a 600 when the 'small' version of a huge map could be equal in size to the average version of a large map, still well in the bounds of a majority of CC. They still have the option to play the small map, its just not 600px because the map is huge, but it still fits on their screen.

[Incandenza]

I'd like to know if the people that use small maps mind playing on a map like World 2.1 and/or if they'd mind other maps of that size.

Okay, qualifications before anything else:
1. I'm a reasonably highly-ranked player
2. I loosely follow the development of interesting maps
3. I play on an iBook with a 12" screen

The thing to remember with world 2.1 is that not only is it the recognizable world, but that the bottom 1/6 of the map is the legend, which anyone that's played the map a few times and has BOB installed won't need. Whereas a fictional map that uses that slack 1.6 at the bottom will be considerably more difficult to follow.

Look, as one of the 'mainstream users' that lack is describing, I don't necessarily have a problem with huge maps. I don't mind scrolling down for the buttons. But having to scroll for a map itself would be maddening.

For instance, I think mibi's prison map is fascinating, but I'd never play it, half because of the scrolling issue, half because at a high level the map would probably devolve into stalemate.

[DiM]

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.

[maritovw]

twill said that if my big map is quenched it will make him feel bad because of exclusivity. i ask him what he feels about world 2.1?

I like the map, but I would not be able to play it if there was not the small option. It bugs me that I have to scroll to see the info on the menu side of things but I don't have to scroll to see the whole map in a window at once, so I can live with it. Again, only on small size.

i request that i am allowed to do a map that has the same size as world 2.1 so if i do that you'll have the same feelings towards it as you have towards world 2.1, right?

agreed. this would be a wise decision

[hulmey]

hey man how come your maps not finished??...its a really nice one...bit on the large size but still very nice

[Twill]

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

[Molacole]

If, as seems to be the trend (88% of people choosing not to scroll), people would not play (or more importantly are unable to play) a map because it falls into the "HUGE" category, that would seem to defeat the sense of community which we have tried so hard to create together at this site. If you are actively segregating the community into those who cannot play certain maps and those who can, well now that just sucks. And what if designers, in the effort to create "that perfect map" forget that the perfect map might not be one that has so many territories that it takes a whole year to finish (which in itself sometimes turns people away from it), and perhaps that smaller maps like the brit isles are just as good, and sometimes better than, maps like world 2.0.

I agree it does suck when people segregate themselves from the community. Have you heard of SE lately? That is segregation in a nutshell and nothing is done about that. I do agree that map makers could easily get carried away with making a huge map while trying to make "that perfect map", but that doesn't mean it IS going to happen. Just that it can...

that "they dont have to touch DiM's map" is exactly my problem - you are intentionally making maps which exclude people. one of best things about this site (in my opinion) is that I can play any map with anyone. What happens when all my cooler friends start hanging out on DiM's map because they have large screens and I get left playing in the sandbox because I came from the wrong side of the tracks? That's right, I realize that I'm a sad sad little man with a small screen

making maps, which exclude people is not a fair statement to use about somebody who is creating a map that is the same size as world 2.1 . People will still have the choice to play the map, but will just have to deal with scrolling though, which isn't a problem for most greesemonkey users.

When all your friends start playing dims map (larger maps) then guess what! There is obviously a pretty damm good reason for that and it's because they've found something that suites them better. Maybe that is why world 2.1 took off so fast!

You are dividing a community if you create maps which are not available to everyone (I'm big on community), and yes, people SHOULD have the chance to choose large maps, but people should also not be told they CANNOT choose a map simply because it doesnt fit their screen

Dividing the community would be something like the SE group which sticks together as a clik and segregates themselves from the rest of the community for the most part anyways. I didn't see a single person saying who can and cannot play the map. The map is still able to be played by everyone regardless of screen size once it goes live. It would be like choosing to use BoB and having to scroll on your favorite map or not using it and not scrolling. You obviously would rather scroll and use it so I don't fully understand your whole arguement. Scrolling to view a map sucks, but doing it, while having a program that helps you like BoB does, well then it is just fine and dandy right? Scrolling is either a problem or it isn't. This yeah scrolling sucks, but only because it doesn't do what BoB does thing is just a silly arguement...

To use another analogy, people in wheelchairs should be able to eat in every restaurant in the city so that they too can enjoy the company of more physically able people and all the good food that is offered to them.

To say that is to say that the community has power over a business. As you are witnessing here on this site is how a business owner has complete control over the decisions of their business. Lack has and will make the final decision on all issues pertaining to his income. So yeah lack should have the last word wether people like it or not...

Like I said in my last post, the argument, from my end, is not over large maps, but over maps that cannot fit the small format as well.

Which small format are you speaking of though? The world 2.1 formatt or the one posted by keyogi in this thread? Or the format that works good with BoB?

I use the greasemonkey script too, but you know what, that IS a choice. If I cannot choose a small version of a map because it doesn't fit on that size format, that's not a choice.

As much as I would to like to agree with you on this one I just can't. Only because a small version should be available, but I also think only extreme cases should permit a cartographer to create a huge map. We should definitely have one big ass map (for battle royals) on this website. It would be nice to see a few names creating it as well.

who said the foundry was going to hell...it's going from strength to strength, but the small group of you is asking for pandoras box to be opened - once we start getting these large maps in, people will keep pressing for bigger and bigger ones.

absolutely agree here. People will just keep on pushing as much as they can. Things would get out of hand if any size was permitted!

I love world 2.0, one of my favourites, but I can only play on small mode, if that went away? then I wouldnt play it. I'm not saying that everyone would, just that 88% probably would...or so the stats would suggest.

keep world 2.1 and don't make any more maps that size

2 wrongs don't make a right so to speak. .

you have a 14" monitor and can play world 2.1 as a small version. Granted I think the only reason for this is because of the legend doesn't have any territories on it and all troops of all players can be visible on one screen.
That is what the maximum limit should be then. Maybe put that as another option? World 2.1 minus the legend for the actual map and the rest can only be used as a legend. World 2.1 is extremely popular for a reason!

<the question>
Bigger is not better, there is a trend in the foundry which seems to slowly be moving towards larger maps. I dont understand this - just because there are more territories does not make a map better. Why can you not make a map with the same or similar dynamics with fewer territories?
I have to admit I have not looked in depth at the maps which are requesting super-size-me dimensions and so I am asking for someone to explain to reasoning behind needing these super large maps.
I havn't seen anyone come up with a reason for needing these massive maps other than "because I want it" "because it wont fit on smaller" "because world 2.1 is that size" or "because it would be cool"
What is the advantage, to the site, the playerbase and the future of the game by adding in maps that just have more territories?? Is there a new great gameplay dynamic created, do you need the extra territories to acomplish something in particular or is it just to have more territories?
I don't really understand and this is an honest question because I would like to understand

The #1 advanatge is to anybody who enjoys playing triple matches and we seem to have a ton of people who love team games. Larger maps have the potential to nullify poor troop placement when played with the right fortification settings.
#2 opens the door for 7,8 and even 9 player games to exist. I think I saw something about 8 player games on the "to-do" list.
#3 I think the bigger the map is the harder it is to win. world 2.1 is extremely hard to win on even when you get ideal troop placement. Whereas you can easily walk away with a win if you hold Australia when you start your second turn. Plus the simple fact that people just prefer them.

And sure, Conquerclub has benefited a HUGE deal from the foundry but the fact remains that the site serves more people than just those creating maps in the foundry, no? The owner's responsibility to the community is to ensure that the most people possible can play on the site, and that means ensuring that people can easily use the maps.

Ease of use is very important. Detailed descriptions of map types also help. Being able to view the map before you play it is another great feature! I would think that finding what works for you would be most important though.

Perhaps you should force the administration of the site to listen to you the same way that abused workers persuade management to listen to their concerns: by going on strike. You could refuse to do any map development, post to the forums, or contribute to the community in any form until the people in charge finally agree to open a real dialog.

I kind of think this was a joke, but I'm not so sure. A strike should be last resort as it has a lot of side affects and big time downside to taking this route. I personally would just stop playing before I went on an organized strike. Just talking about it means something isn't right. We have no union so we have no need for it.

I guess I understand where each side is coming from. The map makers want to make BIG maps ( I would like to do that as well). But the owner of the site wants to have small maps as well (which I feel are also needed).

Like it was said before, many players use the small maps. If a large map can be put into a small size then it is OK. Maybe a suggestion could be made for huge maps as long as a small and large could be made also. The detail in the large and especially the small maps would be lowered, but as long as they are still legible and playable, maybe that could resolve the issue.

I would try to propose this and see what happens.

But after the dust settles and the boss decides, each and every foundry map maker needs to accept the decision and continue on with life.

Plus going on strike does not seem like a real good idea to me. 90% of the CC community (probably more) does not even know who any of us are. What would going on strike do? Not all of the map makers are going to do it so you really will not stop the flow of new maps. But even if we all did, the community has 40+ maps to play now and I am sure it would take quite a while before they are are bored with them.

Well considering it looks like world 2.1 (small version) can fit on everyone with a 14" monitor and aboves screen could you talk to the boss about making the map requirments that of world 2.1 minus the legend? Maybe only be able to use that exact size is if your legend is that exact size?

Another idea I have is allow the width to be extended by moving/relocating the side menu bar that takes up so much space. This would allow for very wide maps to be viewed on smaller monitors.