Conquer Club

Why are new maps so huge? its annoying and I really think they should be smaller... why so big? I can't see the entire map and the stats and stuff at the same time. If people want a big map can't they hit the button that makes it bigger? why are small maps so big now?

it would be nice if they had smaller versions...i understand lots of players have bigger screens than me but they can use the large map feature if they want.

A, no one forces you to play the maps that you think are too big and 2, maps can't just be made "smaller" just like that - you need to be able to fit in all the details and rules on the map image. Also, for some reason we have an idiotic side bar on the left side of the screen taking room from maps.

And you can always zoom out in your browser by pressing ctrl - or holding ctrl and scrolling the mouse wheel.

natty dread wrote:A, no one forces you to play the maps that you think are too big and 2, maps can't just be made "smaller" just like that - you need to be able to fit in all the details and rules on the map image. Also, for some reason we have an idiotic side bar on the left side of the screen taking room from maps.

And you can always zoom out in your browser by pressing ctrl - or holding ctrl and scrolling the mouse wheel.

i have zero issues with with horizontal screen room, it is all about the size of the map vertically. Anyway if hive can fit all on one screen every other map should be able to at least come close. I can see about half of Kings Court II at any time and need to zoom out 4 times in order to see the entire map on one screen.

Sure i dont have to play the maps...but then that's just taking one of the great things about CC away from me as a player. Also what about random...am i allowed take maps out of random so that i dont get the large ones?

And yes, i can deal with it...but its a nuisance and it would be nice if cc could just stick to smaller maps sizes with bigger map options. Clearly im not the only one bothered.

All anyone is asking for is an option...there was already a large map function so people could see greater detail if they wanted. And while zooming out is an option it distorts the map ever so slightly which is even more annoying than scrolling. Not to mention the fact that it causes problems with some scrips like clickable maps where you can mis deploy or something like that.

Yeah ijex, if you only want the map in a smaller size, just zoom out in your browser. But then don't complain that the text is unreadable, borders are unclear etc. Map images need, by default, be clear and readable in both sizes, so there's a limit how small a certain map image with certain gameplay can be made.

For example, a map like king's court 2 can hardly be made any smaller, the small map is already as small as a map with that many territories can be - if the map image were to be made any smaller, then people would complain that the map is unreadable, the numbers don't fit, etc.

You see, the way computer graphics work, you cannot downscale a bitmap image without losing details & accuracy - all images on computers are made of small coloured squares called "pixels" and there's only a certain amount of these pixels that can fit in a certain sized image. If you reduce the image size, you also reduce the number of pixels in that image, effectively reducing the quality of the image. That's also why the quality lowers when you zoom out, and if the maps were made smaller by default then it would achieve the same effect.

natty, i don't have issues with playing the smaller or larger maps...i have BOB 5.2.3 installed and that allows me to hide the side-bar menu when GAME is turned on as an option in the HIDE MENU: option.
I guess you don't have BOB.
I do understand however the small screen issues, and yes i beleive there should still be small maps as well as large ones - lots of work, but it goes someway to please most of the community.

cairnswk wrote:i have BOB 5.2.3 installed and that allows me to hide the side-bar menu

So? Bob is not part of the actual site, it's an external tool... the point is the sidebar shouldn't exist in the first place. We shouldn't need a tool to hide it.

cairnswk wrote:I do understand however the small screen issues, and yes i beleive there should still be small maps as well as large ones

Sure there should be small maps, but these guys are complaining that "small maps are not small enough"... but the irony is that when I suggest to them to zoom out in their browser they say "no, the map gets too unclear then" without realizing that if the map was sized smaller it would cause the exact same problem....

Small maps need to be as small as possible while fitting in all the map elements so that they're clear and readable, but asking them to be made any smaller than that because they don't fit your own screen is simply foolish. If you want to downscale maps at the cost of quality/readability, you can just as well use the zoom function for that.

natty dread wrote:Small maps need to be as small as possible while fitting in all the map elements so that they're clear and readable, but asking them to be made any smaller than that because they don't fit your own screen is simply foolish. If you want to downscale maps at the cost of quality/readability, you can just as well use the zoom function for that.

QFT.



it's not just about the sidebar, even with that removed we'd still have to scroll vertically. it's about having a completely outdated interface, from a technological point of view.
other sites like majorcommand, luxdelux, or landgrab have far superior interfaces that include by default all the features of such add-ons like clickable maps or bob. plus they have separate legends for the maps in separate pop-up or slide-in images.

if we had this then we'd shave of 1-400 pixels of almost any map. this space could be used for adding more terits and enhance the gameplay or simply left out and make sure the map fits snugly on the screen.

natty dread wrote:For example, a map like king's court 2 can hardly be made any smaller, the small map is already as small as a map with that many territories can be - if the map image were to be made any smaller, then people would complain that the map is unreadable, the numbers don't fit, etc.

King's Court 2 is a perfect example. It's insane that the "small" map won't fit on the screen, even vertically. And yes, the labels are almost unreadable, but there's no reason they have to be. There's tons of unused space in each hex, so why do the labels only fill the top quarter of the hex, instead of the whole top half? The old Avalon Hill tabletop wargames were built with small hexes also, but there weren't huge gobs of wasted space in a hex, if the label needed to fill the whole thing, it did. If the font on KC2 was doubled relative to the map hex, the map could be shrunk down by 30% in each dimension while still making the *actual* size of the labels larger and more readable.

DiM wrote:it's not just about the sidebar, even with that removed we'd still have to scroll vertically. it's about having a completely outdated interface, from a technological point of view.
other sites like majorcommand, luxdelux, or landgrab have far superior interfaces that include by default all the features of such add-ons like clickable maps or bob. plus they have separate legends for the maps in separate pop-up or slide-in images.

They pay for all that techno-wizardry with more bugs, more bandwidth, and longer load times.

Dukasaur wrote:King's Court 2 is a perfect example. It's insane that the "small" map won't fit on the screen,

Whose screen? Or did all screens become the same size when I wasn't looking?

Dukasaur wrote:And yes, the labels are almost unreadable, but there's no reason they have to be. There's tons of unused space in each hex,

See, that's what you just don't get. We have certain requirements - each territory must fit 3 digits and a territory label. The territory labels must also be in readable size, and in addition to that, KC2 also has icons that denote different gameplay mechanics that need to be readable.

Have you ever tried to design map graphics? Do you know all the different things that mapmakers have to take in account when designing a map interface? No, but you still blindly demand "smaller maps" for your own convenience. When you reduce the size of a map, you run into all kinds of problems regarding clarity, readability, etc.

Dukasaur wrote:The old Avalon Hill tabletop wargames

Stop right there, that's an idiotic comparison. Tabletop games are not limited by resolution of the displaying device. If everyone's monitors were the same resolution as a printing press (around 600 dpi at least) then we'd have no problems at all, in fact we could do with just one map image and scale it when necessary. Sadly, computer technology isn't quite there yet, so there's a certain limit, a certain treshold that stops reducing the actual size of maps - in terms of font size, that limit is around 8px - any smaller fonts will become unreadable because of pixelation.

Dukasaur wrote:If the font on KC2 was doubled relative to the map hex, the map could be shrunk down by 30% in each dimension while still making the *actual* size of the labels larger and more readable.

No it couldn't. Maybe if you really squeezed everything together some 5-10% could be squeezed out of the size, barely.

The truth is that the size of the small map is largely dependent on the large - in most cases, the small map can't be made smaller than 75% of the large map. It seems to me like people who complain about the sizes want things both ways - they want large & complex maps, but they also want them to fit in the size of their palm... which is, with our current technology, impossible.

The real answer is not limiting the size of maps, but again we need a better UI for the game page, and sorting maps in categories. CC should continue offering something for everyone, small maps for small map lovers and large maps for large map lovers.

Dukasaur wrote:They pay for all that techno-wizardry with more bugs, more bandwidth, and longer load times.

Bandwidth and loading times are only a concern with antiquated, bloated platforms like flash, and those are totally unnecessary for designing a better game UI. And bugs? That's simply a non-sequitur. Bugs are not dependent on what kind of interface you have, bugs result from shoddy coding.

I just want to ask a thing about the poll....what does it mean smaller?
I mean sincesize is something relative and mostly it depends on the hardware people have....with smaller you mean how many pixels? The old 630x600 ? smaller? Bigger?
Without set a perfect small size limit required it's difficult to have a concrete and constructive discussion about this.
What's the biggest map image you can see on your monitors?

I want to clarify why remove the left side bar can change things:
1. maps can be larger instead of taller
2. The dropdown menu (game menu) can be moved on the right side, under player names! Like in this example:



Isn't this better than have smaller, less detailed, uglier maps?

I prefer small map sizes...

Perhaps a third map size could be made for the very large maps. There would be large, small, and mini... or small, large, and super size.

natty dread wrote:Yeah ijex, if you only want the map in a smaller size, just zoom out in your browser. But then don't complain that the text is unreadable, borders are unclear etc. Map images need, by default, be clear and readable in both sizes, so there's a limit how small a certain map image with certain gameplay can be made.

You see, the way computer graphics work, you cannot downscale a bitmap image without losing details & accuracy - all images on computers are made of small coloured squares called "pixels" and there's only a certain amount of these pixels that can fit in a certain sized image. If you reduce the image size, you also reduce the number of pixels in that image, effectively reducing the quality of the image. That's also why the quality lowers when you zoom out, and if the maps were made smaller by default then it would achieve the same effect.

Is it really necessary to be condescending in your post? I do know enough about computers to know about pixels and such.

natty dread wrote:For example, a map like king's court 2 can hardly be made any smaller, the small map is already as small as a map with that many territories can be - if the map image were to be made any smaller, then people would complain that the map is unreadable, the numbers don't fit, etc.

Look at the size of the hive map, then go look at the size of the kings court map. Hive has more regions than the kings court map though granted there are a bunch of nonexistent regions in Kings court II.


The points is, not everyone likes these new large maps like lack thought they would. Sure map makers love them as it gives them more to work with, but as a user who now has to scroll a bunch, it is really annoying.

thenobodies80 wrote:I just want to ask a thing about the poll....what does it mean smaller?
I mean sincesize is something relative and mostly it depends on the hardware people have....with smaller you mean how many pixels? The old 630x600 ? smaller? Bigger?
Without set a perfect small size limit required it's difficult to have a concrete and constructive discussion about this.
What's the biggest map image you can see on your monitors?

I want to clarify why remove the left side bar can change things:
1. maps can be larger instead of taller
2. The dropdown menu (game menu) can be moved on the right side, under player names! Like in this example:

Click image to enlarge.

Isn't this better than have smaller, less detailed, uglier maps?

I really dont mind scrolling a little bit for a map, but for kings court II or the NA/SA map whatever that is called, i can only really see about half the map at any given time which makes it really hard to gain a perspective on the situation of the game.

I myself would love to have the smaller maps of the huge maps smallasized... my tiny monitor cannot fit them in, and I really would love to play some of those huge ones a lot more, but i just hate it because like the above posted, just too much sliding back and forth up and down just to see what the heck is going on. I dont even care if its readable, as long as i can click, kill, click, kill...please do this.

-griff

ljex wrote:I really dont mind scrolling a little bit for a map, but for kings court II or the NA/SA map whatever that is called, i can only really see about half the map at any given time which makes it really hard to gain a perspective on the situation of the game.

I understand what you're saying. But those 2 maps are the only two exceptions we have allowed with a so big size.
What I need to understand is what people really want (and with people I mean players).
For example a map like my Africa II is too high?
Without considering those two maps that are really high for everyone's monitor, what other supersized maps can't fit your monitor or are really annoying for the scroll/bad percepition of the game situation?
I'm going to change the size restriction to not have this type of problems, but I want to go in the right way and don't have to change the rule and then change it again and again...I'm not so much a "attempts" guy...if you get what I mean.

So help me to help you.
Pick up two maps, one that has a perfect size for your monitor and one that is too big (but not KC2 or FNA)

Thanks

thenobodies80 wrote:I just want to ask a thing about the poll....what does it mean smaller?
I mean sincesize is something relative and mostly it depends on the hardware people have....with smaller you mean how many pixels? The old 630x600 ? smaller? Bigger?
Without set a perfect small size limit required it's difficult to have a concrete and constructive discussion about this.
What's the biggest map image you can see on your monitors?

I want to clarify why remove the left side bar can change things:
1. maps can be larger instead of taller
2. The dropdown menu (game menu) can be moved on the right side, under player names! Like in this example:

Click image to enlarge.

Isn't this better than have smaller, less detailed, uglier maps?

I guess the main thing that has pushed me to be aggravated are two maps, I wanted to play trafalgar, but the wideness an height of it seems a little rediculous and it annoys me. Your example is for me, the LARGEST I would want to see a small map. Also you question doesn't allow for a good counter response you asked "isn't this better than have smaller, less detailed, uglier maps?"
I don't think smaller maps, are ugly. I also don't think they lose that much detail! So my answer is I don't think making is smaller will hurt the quality of maps, it will rather enhance the quality of play.

As to your question to Ljex. I guess my favorite maps are ones like Antarctica, it doens't seem like an ugly map to me, yet it is small and easy playing size. Island of Doom is about the tallest I want to see, I really prefer the map to be square or only slightly different in hieght and width.

swimmerdude99 wrote:I don't think smaller maps, are ugly. I also don't think they lose that much detail! So my answer is I don't think making is smaller will hurt the quality of maps, it will rather enhance the quality of play.

I'm starting to think this is the main issue. The really different perspective between the mapmakers point of view and the "just" player one.
That's why I want to change a process that now it seems more done to produce "nice-over nitpicked-some user preference based" maps than maps that are done only to be played.
But let me say that mapmakers didn't receive a new toy to play with in the last 2 years and they want to express at least their creativity in some way.
More space help to do that...I know it's playing site...but don't forget who gives you the "ground" on which you play.

Anyway...we'll find a compromise...although I would prefer to see players like you come here more often and not just to complain when something is wrong.
We need to know what the players think!

Nobodies

thenobodies80 wrote:Anyway...we'll find a compromise...although I would prefer to see players like you come here more often and not just to complain when something is wrong.
We need to know what the players think!

Nobodies

I used to try come in often, but things just got so huge and so much was happening with new maps coming etc, that it seemed impossible to keep up with, and once it dropped off the radar it was too much to catch up with, that that that...
Yeah.

I guess in a sense it's similar to this discussion of map sizes? There's too much map to fit your screen & so there's so much (seemingly) happening in the foundry, it's hard to get involved in and start off small.

I'm not sure I'd know the solution, and I'm sure everybody has idea's on how to make people get more involved here, it just somehow becomes too high a bar to jump to get involved?

i actaully don't think its the map sizes that need to change so much...it's the UI. There's a bunch of stuff that could be done to make the interface better and more effiecient.
One thing would be to put maps inside a frameset that have scroll bars on them so that players could scroll to various bits of the map.
I notice that Trafalagar was mentioned, yet the height on the small map is only 650px...50 px bigger than the old small size, so i really don't see what the hieght issue was there - the width i can understand. There is about 130px on the left of that map that is there simply for visual representation of gameplay. If this map had a scroll bar, you'd be able to play the map by hiding that section of the map.
I'm inclined to agree with Dim and natty on this issue - it was suggested long ago to lackattack that the UI could change for the better, but...

thenobodies80 wrote:

ljex wrote:I really dont mind scrolling a little bit for a map, but for kings court II or the NA/SA map whatever that is called, i can only really see about half the map at any given time which makes it really hard to gain a perspective on the situation of the game.

I understand what you're saying. But those 2 maps are the only two exceptions we have allowed with a so big size.
What I need to understand is what people really want (and with people I mean players).
For example a map like my Africa II is too high?
Without considering those two maps that are really high for everyone's monitor, what other supersized maps can't fit your monitor or are really annoying for the scroll/bad percepition of the game situation?
I'm going to change the size restriction to not have this type of problems, but I want to go in the right way and don't have to change the rule and then change it again and again...I'm not so much a "attempts" guy...if you get what I mean.

So help me to help you.
Pick up two maps, one that has a perfect size for your monitor and one that is too big (but not KC2 or FNA)

Thanks

Trafulgar is about as high of a map as i would like to see vertically and no map has ever not fit horizontally so that is not an issue for the moment.

thenobodies80 wrote:

swimmerdude99 wrote:I don't think smaller maps, are ugly. I also don't think they lose that much detail! So my answer is I don't think making is smaller will hurt the quality of maps, it will rather enhance the quality of play.

I'm starting to think this is the main issue. The really different perspective between the mapmakers point of view and the "just" player one.
That's why I want to change a process that now it seems more done to produce "nice-over nitpicked-some user preference based" maps than maps that are done only to be played.
But let me say that mapmakers didn't receive a new toy to play with in the last 2 years and they want to express at least their creativity in some way.
More space help to do that...I know it's playing site...but don't forget who gives you the "ground" on which you play.

Anyway...we'll find a compromise...although I would prefer to see players like you come here more often and not just to complain when something is wrong.
We need to know what the players think!

Nobodies

For about a week i tried to come in here and post, but there is just so much going on it becomes hard to keep up. I love the work you guys do creating so many maps of different styles. I guess i could make more of an effort to come post for at least the beta maps though.

ljex wrote:Look at the size of the hive map, then go look at the size of the kings court map. Hive has more regions than the kings court map though granted there are a bunch of nonexistent regions in Kings court II.

The difference between KC2 and Hive is that KC2 also has the special region icons. If the label were made any bigger, it would cover up the icons on those regions that have them. Due to the nature of the hex borders, it wouldn't really work to decrease the size of the ordinary hexes without touching the special hexes as well. If you look at a special hex in KC2 on the smaller map, there really is not any more space available with the number, label, and icon.

I think that, in this case, there is not a lot that could be done to reduce the size any further. In which case, what would the solution be? Not allow this map, or any other map that couldn't be made smaller? I don't think that is the right solution.

Maybe a better solution would be to try to get Lack to add some sort of option for random games to not allow oversized maps? Dunno.

I keep trying to explain but no one seems to get it...

Bitmaps cannot be scaled infinitely. Monitors have finite resolution. If a map is made into a certain size, you can't just arbitrarily say "make it smaller", because it doesn't work that way. If you don't care about the quality or readability of the image, just zoom out in your browser, that will solve your problem.

Secondly, it's pretty damn selfish to demand that large maps should be banned just because they don't fit your monitor. No one forces you to play any map you don't want to play, why not stick to the maps you like and let others play maps they like! Don't restrict other people's map preferences just because you don't want to play the maps they like... like I said, there's plenty of small maps to choose from.

dwilhelmi wrote:I think that, in this case, there is not a lot that could be done to reduce the size any further. In which case, what would the solution be? Not allow this map, or any other map that couldn't be made smaller? I don't think that is the right solution.

Maybe a better solution would be to try to get Lack to add some sort of option for random games to not allow oversized maps? Dunno.

This guys is on the right track. We need constructive solutions, not destructive ones - treat the cause, not the symptom.

ljex wrote:Trafulgar is about as high of a map as i would like to see vertically and no map has ever not fit horizontally so that is not an issue for the moment.

Ever try fullscreen mode? You can toggle it from F11 in firefox...

Trafalgar is only a bit above 700 pixels - large map... hell, the regular map limit is 800 pixels for the large - there's no way maps should be limited to that height. I mean, you can get a 1050-1080 px monitor for less than $100 these days so there's really no excuse for limiting the height under 1000px.

thenobodies80 wrote:

swimmerdude99 wrote:I don't think smaller maps, are ugly. I also don't think they lose that much detail! So my answer is I don't think making is smaller will hurt the quality of maps, it will rather enhance the quality of play.

I'm starting to think this is the main issue. The really different perspective between the mapmakers point of view and the "just" player one.
That's why I want to change a process that now it seems more done to produce "nice-over nitpicked-some user preference based" maps than maps that are done only to be played.
But let me say that mapmakers didn't receive a new toy to play with in the last 2 years and they want to express at least their creativity in some way.
More space help to do that...I know it's playing site...but don't forget who gives you the "ground" on which you play.

Anyway...we'll find a compromise...although I would prefer to see players like you come here more often and not just to complain when something is wrong.
We need to know what the players think!

Nobodies

What else would I do? come in and post "good job?" I post in here when I see something that I think would benifit the site and its users... I always post (or try to post) in here with constructive criticism. My goal with this thread is not to complain but to make the map makers aware of a complaint I have heard from fellow players. I'm pretty sure the only thing you will hear from players as to what they think is things they want to change to make it the way they prefer it... I know you weren't mad or anything... but what are you asking us to do other than "complain"? I made a comment to let people know what I think and what others think... soooo either you want "so called complaints" or you don't... but you can't ask for both!
I'm trying to say that I love the map kings court for example, I was pumped about number 2, but its almost unmanageable to play, but then again, like people have said maybe that can't be helped. Sadly that means I won't be playing it much despite how much I love the gameplay.
The map knights is probably my favorite map for standard and assassin games right now, it is so unique, I love it! Its smaller... yet no one thinks that it is lower quality than any other game do they?

I'm not trying to argue with you...really.
Just trying to say that if all the people that today is posting in the kabanellas map topic asking for a smaller map had checked the map thread when the KC2 map was in the production it would have been easier for Kabanellas to change the map accordingly the players suggestion than now,when he has basically finished his job, just because the map threads are checked by mapmakers only. And mapmakers care more about the art than the playing aspects.
As said it wasn't a comment against you, but more about the different perspective foundry goers and players have.