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

[yeti_c]

because i can't be bothered clicking the large map link.

You do know that you can set the Large to be your default size...

http://www.conquerclub.com/player.php?mode=settings

C.

[yeti_c]

Its been over a year since the decision was made not to increase the allowable sizes for maps , so lets revisit this.

I am in favour of increasing the limits, now I'm not saying lets go stupidly large, but at least give us a little something more to work with.

Here is my reasoning behind it.

Resolution vs. % of Internet Users
Higher than 1024×768 = 38%
1024×768 = 48%
800×600 = 8%
Lower than 800×600 = < 1%
Unknown = 6%

So as we can see 80%+ of people use a screen res of 1024x768 or higher, which is pretty much the new standard for 4:3 monitors (this includes wide screen monitors which have are generally in the 1200x800 mark)

The display size of higher than 1024x768 is up 12% for 2008 on last year so going by these trends we can expect around 50% plus people to be using the SXGA (1280 x 1024) by mid/end of next year.

This info is from w3schools

Now CC is a php site, so that means by using some javascript and php commands it shouldn't be too difficult to collect screen resolution data from the CC users to make an informed decision.

Personally I think if we are being limited in our map sizes because of up to 15% of the users (800x600 and lower, and the unkown) then there are some issues.

So yeah, if your not going to up the size, give us the Stats and the reasoning behind it.

I'm afraid you've misread the situation...

The small map sizes are for people with 1024x768 screens... (this is obvious as the height of the large (800 is bigger than the height of the screen (768))

Sadly this changes your stats to 54% = small. 46% = large.

C.

PS on a side note - I'm surprised to see that Chrome has a larger market share than Opera or Safari (according to that site)
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

[reggie_mac]

These stats are also from January, so im sure there is a little change, but probably not by much, maybe not enough.
But i would like to see the percentages for CC users.

And this is what im talking about.

1. SMALL MAP: WIDTH up to 630 px; HEIGHT 600 px
Fits into 1024x768

2. LARGE MAP: WIDTH up to 840 px ; HEIGHT 800 px.
Also fits into 1024x768

Why are both sizes made to fit into the same size screen? shouldn't the large map exist to be used on a higher screen res, if not then there should be only be one maximum size.

The small map size looks like its is designed for 800x600, yet would be to big anyway taking tool bars into account, and this is for less than 10% of users (according to w3schools). Which again, is why i'd like to see the cc stats.

[yeti_c]

2. LARGE MAP: WIDTH up to 840 px ; HEIGHT 800 px.
Also fits into 1024x768

How exactly does an 800 pixel high image fit into a 768 pixel high screen?

Remember of course - that the screen size is not the same as the map size either... there are numerous extra bits of screen that are lost due to toolbars (windows/browser) - menu strips, headers...

I did an analysis of the sizes compared to the windows (My hope was to prove the sizes wrong) somewhere - and that showed that the sizes were as big as we could go with those resolutions (in fact - I think the small size is almost a shade too big).

C.

PS EDIT : viewtopic.php?f=127&t=38173&p=996735&hilit=+yeti+map+size+1024+768#p996735

[reggie_mac]

because my math is all f#$ked up and i shouldn't be trying to post when im up late at night.

Please slap me upside my head.

[yeti_c]

because my math is all f#$ked up and i shouldn't be trying to post when im up late at night.

Please slap me upside my head.

Consider yourself slapped!!

I'd be interested to see the stats on this in January though - if the balance of the scales has tipped - perhaps it might be time for a change...

Then again - we're still awaiting the game screen redesign that was mooted months (years?) ago!!

C.

[Qwert]

Then again - we're still awaiting the game screen redesign that was mooted months (years?) ago!!

you are correct,when i start WWII EUROPE, mods tell me to waith,that these will be redesigned in near future,still after one year nothing. Also i notice in sugestion topic,that things who is in Lackattack to-do list siting and waiting for veru very long time(years)

[Ditocoaf]

I still argue that none of this has to be a problem. Of course you don't want maps wider than people's screens, but scrolling vertically is: varying degrees of annoying depending on how much is necessary. Which sounds to me like something that should be judged subjectively, on a case-by-case basis. Of course you don't want a ton of really tall maps, and in fact you want most of them to be short enough to avoid scrolling. But exceptions for an exceptionally good map, that really needs it, shouldn't be an issue. You do this anyway, with other, comparable elements of maps. Here's what I mean:

You don't allow maps with a needless amount of territories that doesn't add much to the quality... yet you don't have a clear defined "territory limit".

You don't allow maps that are so oversaturated with color that they're ugly... yet you don't have a "saturation limit" for colors used in the map.

You don't allow maps that have too much useless distracting decoration... yet you don't set a maximum number of non-gameplay-related decorations.

You don't want maps with excess size that doesn't add anything to the quality? ... You don't need a "size limit".


Just judge it qualitatively, like everything else. You'll say things like:
"This map seems to be 'big for the sake of big'. Could you trim it down?"
"I'm afraid nobody will want to play this map; it isn't interesting enough to warrant the excess size."
"You realize that this map will be too wide for most people's screens. Fix it."
It's the sort of thing you do every day in the foundry... and map makers try to make maps that people will want to play. No need to set a precise, arbitrary limit...

[MrBenn]

That's a well-thought out argument, although the map size is to all intents and purposes a technical, rather than creative element of map design. There will always be some technical limits to what you can do on a map, and there are some site-imposed limits (deliberate or otherwise) on what can be achieved.

There are hundreds of suggestions for twists to gameplay in the XML suggestions thread, and maps in development that are waiting for gameplay changes (Maze Craze springs to mind). These maps have gone through the 'community improvement' process, but get stuck until the changes make the map possible, or the mapmaker compromises their opinions to make it work.

It's exactly the same with the image size. CC has deliberately imposed standards that must be met for the map to be published.

Think of it like a railway track... If you want your trains to run properly, the wheels have to be a certain distance apart... If you get it wrong, you could have the most beautiful and powerful trains in the world, but they're not going to take anybody anywhere...

[oaktown]

None of this discussion is new. Instead of repeating myself I'll quote what I said in January...

also the huge maps will be under close surveillance by andy and coleman and they'll make sure the size is that big only if the map requires it. it would be kinda stupid to have a 10 terit map on 4000*4000 px.

Yes, it would be stupid, but it will happen.

Riddle me this, Batman: why is 18 territory Doodle Earth 800 pixels wide?
Answer: because it can be.

The large Doodle map would look fine if it was 700 pixels wide - in fact it would look better. But as soon as you increase the max pixel size, your average mapmaker is going to make their map as large as possible regardless of whether or not it is appropriate.

And it's easy to say that the CAs will keep mapmakers from making maps larger than they need to, but what would you say, DiM, if Coleman told me I can make my map 1200 pixels wide, but yours can only be 800? It would be foundry revolution #2, and I would support you because what's good for me is good for you. We need one standard for everybody, so everybody is treated fairly. No exceptions, no special circumstances.

I'm all for larger maps. If/when the CC interface changes to allow vertical scrolling I'll be the first to drink a toast to lack. But once we open the door and allow bigger maps, you better believe it will be the end of new maps that you can see on your screen. If somebody doesn't have to squeeze their legend into the corner of their map to make it fit, they won't. We'll gain much by having larger maps, but we'll lose something as well.

[RjBeals]

It would be foundry revolution #2

What was revolution #1, when Puget and Civil War reached final forge?

But once we open the door and allow bigger maps, you better believe it will be the end of new maps that you can see on your screen.

Not for my maps. I prefer not to scroll. I might produce a larger size map just do it, but I would probably stick to 800 pixels. It would just be nice to have the option.

[Ditocoaf]

None of this discussion is new. Instead of repeating myself I'll quote what I said in January...

also the huge maps will be under close surveillance by andy and coleman and they'll make sure the size is that big only if the map requires it. it would be kinda stupid to have a 10 terit map on 4000*4000 px.

Yes, it would be stupid, but it will happen.

Riddle me this, Batman: why is 18 territory Doodle Earth 800 pixels wide?
Answer: because it can be.

The large Doodle map would look fine if it was 700 pixels wide - in fact it would look better. But as soon as you increase the max pixel size, your average mapmaker is going to make their map as large as possible regardless of whether or not it is appropriate.

And it's easy to say that the CAs will keep mapmakers from making maps larger than they need to, but what would you say, DiM, if Coleman told me I can make my map 1200 pixels wide, but yours can only be 800? It would be foundry revolution #2, and I would support you because what's good for me is good for you. We need one standard for everybody, so everybody is treated fairly. No exceptions, no special circumstances.

I'm all for larger maps. If/when the CC interface changes to allow vertical scrolling I'll be the first to drink a toast to lack. But once we open the door and allow bigger maps, you better believe it will be the end of new maps that you can see on your screen. If somebody doesn't have to squeeze their legend into the corner of their map to make it fit, they won't. We'll gain much by having larger maps, but we'll lose something as well.

You completely ignored my argument. Please reread my post...


I'm saying that we can suppress needlessly large maps, without an arbitrary, unchangeable limit. If someone tried to make a 2000 pixel tall map with 20 territories, we as a community would refuse to OK the graphics until they fix it. Because we all know what's bad.

Why was doodle earth okayed if it was 100 pixels too wide? Because it met the arbitrary limit. Without the limit, they wouldn't be able to say "It's okay for me to make it 800, because it meets the limit!" They'd have to argue that it's better for it to be that large... and they'd be wrong.

[oaktown]

It would be foundry revolution #2

What was revolution #1, when Puget and Civil War reached final forge?

At the time of this post (January) there was outrage and petitions and folks officially joining "sides" - the comment made sense at the time.

I prefer not to scroll. I might produce a larger size map just do it, but I would probably stick to 800 pixels. It would just be nice to have the option.

I agree with you 100%; I would like to keep making smaller maps, just as currently I prefer to make "classic" gameplay maps even though we have all sorts of XML variations I could use. There will always be a place for classic maps that fit on your screen, just as there are also users who wish for complex, larger maps.

You completely ignored my argument. Please reread my post...

Yeah, I did kind of ignore it, but that doesn't mean that I didn't read it... sorry. And I think that what you said has some merit. But having wielded a stamp for the past nine months or so I have found that it is often very hard to get a mapmaker to recognize that the killer neutrals or ranged attacks or generous bonuses that are being proposed aren't necessary and may actually be bad for the map's gameplay. And I think Gimil has it even worse - try telling a mapmaker that one of his favorite elements on a map looks bad. Like my Eastern Hemisphere mountains - back off bitches!

When times are slow - like this past months - sometimes I'm the only voice pushing for something, and silence from the rest of the Foundry is considered approval. I can promise you there will be some ugly exchanges when we try to convince a mapmaker to reduce the size of a map when that mapmaker is convinced that his map will be better if its bigger. It's not the size of the map, it's how you push your pixels.

But I'll say again, I'm in favor of bigger map sizes. I think we're all on the same side of this argument here, we just approach it with different concerns.

[edbeard]

I don't see how you can allow larger maps without other maps being made that don't need to be made at that size.

You might say, "only allow it for one's that truly need it." Aim thinking the problem with this would be cries of favouritism for some people getting approval and others not.

You might say, "just strongly encourage people not to use that extra space." When you tell people to start off "these are the maximum limits," people generally start at those limits and present their map. I'd make a totally random guess (for the sole purpose of getting someone to prove me wrong) that 75% of first drafts are done at either the 800x800 or 600x600 limits. When you tell these people they don't need all that space they balk because it's extra work to downsize their map and because people don't like being told what they can and can't do.

[Ditocoaf]

You might say, "just strongly encourage people not to use that extra space." When you tell people to start off "these are the maximum limits," people generally start at those limits and present their map. I'd make a totally random guess (for the sole purpose of getting someone to prove me wrong) that 75% of first drafts are done at either the 800x800 or 600x600 limits. When you tell these people they don't need all that space they balk because it's extra work to downsize their map and because people don't like being told what they can and can't do.

Well, that's kind of what I was saying... you tell them "anything ≤800 is okay," so they make it at 800, and won't accept being told to downsize. If you tell them "it has to be reasonable for your map," then they have no rule that says they're automatically okay no matter what their map is. They can't toe the line, because there is no line to toe.

[ctgottapee]

why is image size still a problem when browsers can increase/decrease it for you and still be BOB compatible?

[TaCktiX]

Because the digits representing armies have to map to specific locations on the image, and scaling them down is a no-go.

[ctgottapee]

my browser scales both

that is why i was asking, the browser seems to have no problem adjusting now with the latest firefox. both the map and army numbers are images so both should scale the same amount

Because the digits representing armies have to map to specific locations on the image, and scaling them down is a no-go.

[reggie_mac]

ok, some early numbers for the Monitor resolution..

1024x768 or less = 45.38%
Higher than 1024x768 = 54.56
Unknown = 0.06%

These numbers are from December '08 from this site, in case anyone wants to check. (these guys include PDA screens etc)
-----

1024x768 or less = 49%
Higher than 1024x768 = 39%
Unknown = 12%

This is from over here, these are some pretty quick stats, hence the unknown number is so high.

Im still waiting for the w3Scools Jan numbers to come out, as they are pretty much the 'rule of thumb' stats. However, as per normal, the average resolution is getting higher and higher, so lets get some big map action

[reggie_mac]

w3schools numbers are in (and they have a shiney website update too), and i must say, the numbers are actually higher than i was expecting...

So here are the numbers for Jan '09

Resolution vs. % of Internet Users
Higher than 1024×768 = 57%
1024×768 = 36%
800×600 = 4%
Lower than 800×600 = 0%
Unknown = 3%

And for comparison, the Jan '08 numbers.

Resolution vs. % of Internet Users
Higher than 1024×768 = 38%
1024×768 = 48%
800×600 = 8%
Lower than 800×600 = < 1%
Unknown = 6%

Now obviously these stats aren't go to be 100% correct for this site, but it does clearly show the trends of whats going on, screen displays are getting bigger and bigger, the normal trends are about 11% increase in max resolution year to year, but between 08-09 the increase for the top bracket was a massive 19%, i doubt the jump would be this big again next year, but not even i was expecting a jump that big (i have been tracking these figures since they started in 2000)

Another way to look at it is that 43% of people use 1024x768 or smaller, now i know that's still a large chunk of people, but im not saying go out and change it tomorrow, but i am asking for the discussion/decision on this to be SERIOUSLY revisited.

There are the tools out there to gather the data specifically for CC users, so why not get some numbers. After all the idea of the site is to provide the best possible site based on a game-that-shall-not-be-named, and when i upgrade my monitor next time (i'm going f@#$%g massive!) i'll want to play on maps that make the most use of it.

[yeti_c]

Finally tipped the balance on the W3Schools numbers...

Great to hear...

It's amazing that we've been looking at these figures for about 2 years now - and one of the things that we could've done was remodel the game page to provide a larger canvas - yet that hasn't been done yet...

Even the 5 second code I added to BOB to allow collapsing of the left menu options hasn't been added!!

C.

[Ditocoaf]

As long as I'm back in the forum posting in all my favorite threads for a few days, I definitely need to chip in my opinion here (again):

We can suppress needlessly large maps, without an arbitrary, unchangeable limit. If someone tried to make a 2000 pixel tall map with 20 territories, we as a community would refuse to OK the graphics until they fix it. Because we all know what's bad. We keep annoying shit out of every other element of a map, without specific, unchangeable guidelines. We don't have a rule saying that maps have to be so-detailed, yet we still force people to avoid bland maps when more detail is called for. In fact, if we did set an arbitrary guideline describing how detailed a map should be, then almost every map would be exactly that detailed, even when more detail is called for, "because it meets the guideline"... and then we also wouldn't have good, simple maps when appropriate, because it'd be against the rules!

Why was doodle earth okayed if it was 100 pixels too wide? Because it met the arbitrary limit. Without the limit, mapmakers wouldn't be able to say "It's okay for me to make it 800, because it meets the limit!" They'd have to argue that it's better for it to be that large... and they'd be wrong.

[oaktown]

We can suppress needlessly large maps, without an arbitrary, unchangeable limit.

For the most part i agree with you here, Ditocoaf. There are all kinds of things that we "require" about maps but that aren't written anywhere - but most of these things are subjective, while size is objective. Keeping map size down will require great restraint by mapmakers and insistence by the community that maps not be larger than they need to be.

If someone tried to make a 2000 pixel tall map with 20 territories, we as a community would refuse to OK the graphics until they fix it. Because we all know what's bad.

That's where I think things will break down: we don't all know what's bad. There are plenty of really, really bad maps that have gone through weeks and months of production in the Foundry with a few dozen users supporting continued production. Then when somebody speaks up we get into "well, everybody except you and you and you and you and you and you and you loves my map, so I'm not changing it." Right now we rarely tell a mapmaker when their map is too big - most maps don't need to be 840x800, yet most continue to be.

Size has been a sticky topic around here for so long and everybody keeps crying out for larger maps. As soon as we lift the restrictions we're going to get hammered with tons of large maps just for the sake of being able to make them. I'd love to see some bigger maps, but I also know that bigger doesn't necessarily mean better.

[AndyDufresne]

I'm looking forward to mid 2009....we just may get some things we've long wanted....


--Andy

[Incandenza]

I believe in the trade they call that "foreshadowing"...

But count me as someone that would be interested to see the size restriction (among other restrictions) lifted. I've been mumbling for some time about the under-filled "very large map" niche (and was thus extremely disappointed when RJ shelved Iron Curtain)...

Perhaps certain restrictions can be lifted for certain mapmakers, make it a progressive concept. That way, people that have already been through the process and have shown that they can play with others could be allowed more freedom, while still keeping first-timers from submitting the aforementioned 2000-pixel 20-terit abomination.