Conquer Club

Can I remind everyone that there is map size restrictions in place. Recently I have been noticing that people are taking the extra width allowance without permission for any of the cartoes. This is not permitted. Anyone with a map currently in development that the cartographer intents to have above the 600px width limit must contact a cartoe to gain appropriate permission.

As a reminder here is the guidelines:

1. SMALL MAP: WIDTH up to 600 px; HEIGHT 600 px
2. LARGE MAP: WIDTH up to 800 px ; HEIGHT800 px. Keep in mind if the map is too high, players have to scroll down to attack.
3. NOTE: A large map must be noticably larger than their small map, if you must have specifics 9% larger is required but 33.3% (1/3rd) is recommended.

* Extenuating Size Circumstances : If a map contains a large number of territories and additional pixels are required for design purpose, a small width and/or height area may be added to the maximum dimensions. Authorization for this addition must be sought from Andy Dufresne or the Cartography Assistant/s, with a good explanation of why the extra dimensions are needed.

1. SMALL MAP: WIDTH not to exceed 630 px; HEIGHT not to exceed 600 px.
2. LARGE MAP: WIDTH not to exceed 840 px; HEIGHT not to exceed 800 px.

Thanks for listening guys.

This should be a sticky post

fumandomuerte wrote:This should be a sticky post

Ive just unstickied it

You very good know that so many maps start before these new size restriction,and that people dont know abouth these new Exclusive rule,where you and Andy decide who can get and who can not get extra px,and you even not apply these from some map makers(me and Cairnswk).
Also now rules that Army numbers not need to be in Army circle is supprise for me to.
Mine big question is why some maps get approwal,but in mine question in these topic,nobody can not remember when these heppend(even you can not remember when Coleman ask extra px).
Now you have plenty map who need these extra px,but you are stuborn and you dont want to see these.
I need extra px,Cairnswk also need extra px, mine opinion is that Mibi Prison Riot and Iraq map,also need extra px.
If i need to waith 6 month to get permision for extra px i will wait,but these is not fair game from you.

qwert wrote:You very good know that so many maps start before these new size restriction,and that people dont know abouth these new Exclusive rule,where you and Andy decide who can get and who can not get extra px,and you even not apply these from some map makers(me and Cairnswk).
Also now rules that Army numbers not need to be in Army circle is supprise for me to.
Mine big question is why some maps get approwal,but in mine question in these topic,nobody can not remember when these heppend(even you can not remember when Coleman ask extra px).
Now you have plenty map who need these extra px,but you are stuborn and you dont want to see these.
I need extra px,Cairnswk also need extra px, mine opinion is that Mibi Prison Riot and Iraq map,also need extra px.
If i need to waith 6 month to get permision for extra px i will wait,but these is not fair game from you.

qwert the size rule was around before I was a mod, before you started AO or your rome map. The fact that you didnt know isnt my fault.

As for the circles issues you have? now your just being stupid. There has never been a rule stating that army numbers must fit within the army circles. At most its been recommend tha all circles are al least 22px so that army numbers fit in them.

Supermax has the extra 30px and iraq DOESNT need it.

qwerts if your looknig to cause ararchy at least do it with facts and some kind of solid argument. All your doing now is wasting everyones time because your not getting your own way. . .

Just out of interest, In what circumstances would you allow a slightly larger map to get through?

Balsiefen wrote:Just out of interest, In what circumstances would you allow a slightly larger map to get through?

Basically only is you have issues that you cant resolve that a size increase would. So you have to present your argument to a CA for showing why the map wont work at 600px. Not start your map at 630px then argue that you cant downsize it.

gimil wrote:

fumandomuerte wrote:This should be a sticky post

Inve jsut unstickies it

at least the "it" is spelled right.

Well i get extra 30px for Western front,and these map have only 42 terittories,and Ardennes offensive have 73 terittories,and when i present mine reason why i need 30px, insted to give me reason why i dont need,you tell me that i erase many things,what pass Map Idea, and you can not do these. Imperium Romanum is now so much squeze in 600px,and version in 630px is much better and much readabile,and even you say in start that i will problem to put names to be readabile,but when i manage to solve these issue in 630px,you tell me oposite.
Anyway,i will present in General Discusion two version of Bouth map and Comunity will vote for more better and more readabile version.
I realy can not alove that one man decide what size is best for map. OFcourse if people vote for squezed map,then ok,but if people thinking that map with 630px is need for these map,then i will waith(i waith 6 month with Eastern Front).

Size restriction before is not been Exclusive right for one or two man,and Mod and Andy(former mods)help Authors and give open hand for map makers to take max 630px(these not write in old rules,but everybody know that)

Cairnswk
Gimil, at the time this map was started on 21 sep last year, there was no need to gain oversize permission because maps were allowed to go to that limit if they were going to need the extra 21 px width becauiise of their size and continent capacity.

At the time of my being a CA, we went through the exercise of downsizing most maps; most of my maps were downsized to the required 600px, however, this one was not put opn the list because of the largeness of the map and the extra space that is needed for the eye.

Lackattack did make a comment in the downsizing exercise, to the extent that it would be a shame to downsize maps like World 2.1 because they look great and need that extra space.

So to answer your question, i don't beleive i ever gained full permission to do this because at the time the extra 21 px were allowed. Andy may be aware of this map situation, if he is not, then i seek permission now....after the map is finished. I will say, that at this point in time, if i have to re-size this small version, i will be most disappointed.

You see even Cairnswk know that you dont need permision in older rules.And he whas MOD.

qwerts if your looknig to cause ararchy at least do it with facts and some kind of solid argument. All your doing now is wasting everyones time because your not getting your own way. . .

You become unfair,i give you reason why i need extra 30px,and you dont give me any valid reply,only "No you dont need extra 30px" and even you dont think with your brain,because Edbeard sugested to you that map have 630px, and you dont see these.

qwert wrote:

Cairnswk
Gimil, at the time this map was started on 21 sep last year, there was no need to gain oversize permission because maps were allowed to go to that limit if they were going to need the extra 21 px width becauiise of their size and continent capacity.

At the time of my being a CA, we went through the exercise of downsizing most maps; most of my maps were downsized to the required 600px, however, this one was not put opn the list because of the largeness of the map and the extra space that is needed for the eye.

Lackattack did make a comment in the downsizing exercise, to the extent that it would be a shame to downsize maps like World 2.1 because they look great and need that extra space.

So to answer your question, i don't beleive i ever gained full permission to do this because at the time the extra 21 px were allowed. Andy may be aware of this map situation, if he is not, then i seek permission now....after the map is finished. I will say, that at this point in time, if i have to re-size this small version, i will be most disappointed.

You see even Cairnswk know that you dont need permision in older rules.And he whas MOD.

For god sake qwerts will you just listen, the rule was there before I was a mod, it was introduced when cairns was a mod, therefor the rule applys for whne both your maps started. It oesnt matter what I think or what your opinion on map size. The rule is there which therefor means I am obligated to enforce it.

You chose to take the extra size size without permission, you put yourself in this mess. You havent given me any solid argument or any solid evidence that your map wont work within the current limit. All you have done is bicker and complain not helping yourself or anyone else.

You dont listen Gimil,the old rules have unwriten Rule that Map maker can go to max 630px if he need extra px,but now if map maker need extra px,he can not take because you have exclusive right to give or to not give permision, and if you dont see that i need extra pixel, then these is not mine fault,but i belive that people will see who version is more readabile and more apropriate for play. Ofcourse you can ignore all these if you want.

qwert wrote:You dont listen Gimil,the old rules have unwriten Rule that Map maker can go to max 630px if he need extra px,but now if map maker need extra px,he can not take because you have exclusive right to give or to not give permision, and if you dont see that i need extra pixel, then these is not mine fault,but i belive that people will see who version is more readabile and more apropriate for play. Ofcourse you can ignore all these if you want.

If ypu put up a polls asing which is clearer it obvious that the bigger will win, that still doesnt mean you need the extra space. As for unwritten rules, that may of been another mods policy but there no written rules that I go by or know about. Therefor i do not enforce them.

As if you go back and read your thread you will notice that edbeard agrees that you dont need the extra space.

Anyway expect an announcment on this issue soon. If you feel the need to dicsuss further my inbox is open

here's your announcement!

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=45551

oaktown wrote:here's your announcement!

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=45551

Hope that cheers you up qwerts

If i good read, MOD squad alove to map maker go to 630px,well these is finaly good decision (large image size is not issue for me)

qwert wrote:If i good read, MOD squad alove to map maker go to 630px,well these is finaly good decision (large image size is not issue for me)

You good read, qwert, you good read.

In the end we all liked the idea of treating everybody the same way... it was easier to change the rule than to address every map on a case-by-case basis.

oaktown wrote:You good read, qwert, you good read.

Well I think you're going to see almost everyone making their maps at the max size now just because they can

there's already quite a few maps at 800x800 that don't need to be

I've always preferred smaller maps, and since my time is very limited I'm actually giving them priority.

Edit: By that I mean if I really only have time to look at one map, it's probably going to be the most promising one, and if there are many that are ready to move or equally promissing I'll probably look at the smaller ones first.

Well I think you're going to see almost everyone making their maps at the max size now just because they can

there's already quite a few maps at 800x800 that don't need to be

All mine large map is not in max px(except WWII EUROPE).