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

[bryguy]

Perhaps certain restrictions can be lifted for certain mapmakers, make it a progressive concept.

Maybe something like the restrictions are lifted (or increased by 100-200 px, making the large max 940x900 or 1040x1000) for people who have already quenched a map?

[oaktown]

Maybe something like the restrictions are lifted (or increased by 100-200 px, making the large max 940x900 or 1040x1000) for people who have already quenched a map?

In my opinion what's good for me is good for you - I'd rather see one rule apply to everybody. I don't know what lack has planned (honestly, I really don't), but my guess would be an overhaul of the game page that would better accommodate larger maps, rather than just changing the size rules. I think is is generally agreed that huge maps would not work very well with the current interface.

[wcaclimbing]

I'd be happy with 1000 across for the large version. That'd at least be a good start.

[reggie_mac]

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.

I get where you are coming from here, but it kinda smacks of elitism. I think that the foundry process itself should be more than enough to keep out the stupidly large/overly pointless maps. You never get the best out of a community by stifling a part of it.

[TaCktiX]

I get where you are coming from here, but it kinda smacks of elitism. I think that the foundry process itself should be more than enough to keep out the stupidly large/overly pointless maps. You never get the best out of a community by stifling a part of it.

The problem is that there will be plenty of Pollyannas out there who will come in, read the "oh, it can be 2000 px if it's cool enough. Well everything I do it cool", post a crap idea/draft and then whine like crazy when people say no. We've had the problem with the standard locked at 840px maximum, and people with far less graphical talent than expected show up with maps that devour your screen in bad looks, then look around bewildered while we tell them "that's too big, abide by the standard everyone else is."

[gimil]

To accommodate this situation we could change the guidelines to state something along the lines of:

'a maps size must not be large for large sake, If you can make your map smaller without reducing the overall quality of the map then you should do so'

Now that isn't a great way of putting it but I think you get the idea I am going for.

[RjBeals]

'a maps size must not be large for large sake, If you can make your map smaller without reducing the overall quality of the map then you should do so'

I think most people will set the canvas size before any work on the map is done. I also think there should be an all or nothing rule. The subjective approach doesn't work here.

[reggie_mac]

anyone else notice that Lack has put the good 'ole google analytics on? good to see Lack, good to see. Now he will have enough actual data on cc users to be able to make a call on the max size, which is good. I, like RJbeals i think that it should be a fixed limit and an all for one rule. Because, we as humans are always going to try and push the boundary, its just what we are.

[porkenbeans]

The need for a signature map for CC is apparent. A world map that includes all the countries of the world is the overall favorite among CC gamers. So, I would like to see this project attempted. Many have been working on this idea, but the size restrictions has made the task next to impossible. If this map could be made as small as possible and still be able to incorporate ALL of the countries, then whatever that size is, could become the new standard limit. My guess is somewhere around 1000 x 900 is where it will end up. I have done enough drafts on this one to say, that I could make it happen at that size.

Also, The menu's on the left, and the game info on the right could be moved under the map. This will allow for larger maps, without having to scroll.

[MrBenn]

Until the user interface changes, I think we're stuck with the sizes we've got

[LED ZEPPELINER]

Until the user interface changes, I think we're stuck with the sizes we've got

foreshadowing???????????
lol

[MrBenn]

I have always been an advocate of larger maps, but for now we have to work with what we've got

[PersonalCommande]

PLEASE,
Keep the controls near the MAP.... The key and player data is secondary information.

What about putting the key etc UNDER the controls and Chat in a separate JPG ?

I am so sick of scrolling World 2.1 and Waterloo.... and my eyes aren't getting any better either.

Increasing the resolution will just mean the writing gets smaller and I mistake Silver and Green more often.

PC
(newbie warning - I've never made a map, and only been writing programs for 28 years)

[dolomite13]

Oops I was under the impression I could go to 840x800 large and 630x600 small for standard sizes. I will work on reducing my large map to 800x800. I should have looked at this thread sooner.

--Dolomite13

[reggie_mac]

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


--Andy

Still waiting

Kinda like cheese i suppose, good things take time... but whats the words? anything new to share?

[captainwalrus]

Back when ConquerClub only had like 20 maps, it was perfectly reasonable to say that because some people would not like having to scroll a bunch when playing, you can't have larger maps than we have now, however, now those people have many other maps to choose from so they will not really be missing out on a large portion of the maps.
Is there really any reason why we can't have big maps? Big maps are better for large 8 player games and allow for more room to maneuver your troops. Even just raising the limit by 200 pixels or so would allow for great new maps to be made. It would also provide new cartographers with an opportunity to fill a new niche. Large maps are more fun to work on and (I have made a few 4000x4000 maps for another game) they really help you improve you map making skills.
I know that there has been lots of discussion about this, but what is the current reason why there cannot be larger maps?

[mibi]

I agree, lets get Skyscraper done!

viewtopic.php?f=242&t=36801&start=0&hilit=skyscraper

[captainwalrus]

So no answer?
Does that mean there is no real reason, or are people just tired of being asked?

[the.killing.44]

viewtopic.php?f=127&t=38173&hilit=petition

[jefjef]

There is a very large numbered map in the works right now called The HIVE. Lots & lots of terts & bonuses.

[the.killing.44]

There is a very large numbered map in the works right now called The HIVE. Lots & lots of terts & bonuses.

Referring to the actual dimensions of the map…

[jefjef]

There is a very large numbered map in the works right now called The HIVE. Lots & lots of terts & bonuses.

Referring to the actual dimensions of the map…

Well no one ever said I was the brightest bulb in the box.

[The Neon Peon]

I really think we need this to be reconsidered.

Perhaps lack can code a pop-up type thing that asks you as soon as you log in what your monitor dimensions are, with a selection of choices. It would let us know what dimensions would fit what % of the people that play CC. (Of course, once you answer it once, it won't ask again)

[AndyDufresne]

Lack intends to redesign some aspects of of the Conquer Club website---a number of preparations have already been made. I'm not sure what his time scale is though in relation to other updates.


--Andy

[wcaclimbing]

Lack intends to redesign some aspects of of the Conquer Club website---a number of preparations have already been made. I'm not sure what his time scale is though in relation to other updates.


--Andy

Didn't he promise that around two years ago?
Its not going to happen