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

[WidowMakers]

The small map for World 2.1 is 627x546, above the guidelines but within the absolute maximum.

the one I'm looking at is 700 x 610

link

maybe I'm missing something

*agrees with edbeard.
its 700x610

Keyogi has already said in another post that the small World 2.0 should not have made it. It slipped through the cracks. The map making process is evolving and Lack has made his choice. He says the these are the limits then they are.

The end.

[The Fuzzy Pengui]

Keyogi has already said in another post that the small World 2.0 should not have made it. It slipped through the cracks. The map making process is evolving and Lack has made his choice. He says the these are the limits then they are.

The end.

[edbeard]

Fair enough

I'm not questioning the decision at all. Without mention of the World 2.1 exception, questions like mine are bound to come up.

[Aspect]

why dont people just get widescreen monitors?
World 2.0 doesnt even come close to pushing the edges of the screen at large size.
what if you added another size?
small
large
widescreen

as another point, I dont think its possible to play maps like world 2.0 on small, so if there are any other maps pushing 100 territories they all will be impossible to read, let alone play.

[snufkin]

as another point, I dont think its possible to play maps like world 2.0 on small

It´s my favourite map and I always play the small version. Never had a problem with it.
Use the large version if you have a non-standard monitor or refuse to wear glasses/contacts.

[unriggable]

why dont people just get widescreen monitors?

Why don't people get surround sound to play music at scrotum-shattering, bowel-flailing levels while their at it?

[wcaclimbing]

why dont people just get widescreen monitors?

Why don't people get surround sound to play music at scrotum-shattering, bowel-flailing levels while their at it?

Those two have nothing in common.
Widescreen gives you a bigger image. it doesnt seriously damage/disembowel anyone...

[Molacole]

for 200 bucs you can get a very good (probably the best for the price) 22" (inch) monitor from dell (not including taxes) and be able to see the world 2.1 map just fine.


just give it some time and eventually the average person will own a wide screen monitor and we won't have to worry about it.

[hulmey]

whats the reason behind Lack's decsiion to not want maps over a certain size (if we are permitted to know)...

The reason given before about it being to big for monitors seems a little odd given then technology available nowadays!!

Also are there any plans to change this decsion in the future?

[hulmey]

Ps....Was just wondering also the point in having a small map and a large one? Why not just have one size? For example Qwerts map would not have any problems being made if t werent for the fact that CC wants there to be 2 versions ( a large and small)!!!!

[KEYOGI]

Conquer Club is designed for what I would expect to be the majority in mind.

Just because there are widescreen and large monitors around with high resolutions doesn't mean everyone has them. I'm sure there are a number of people playing on smaller monitors and resolutions, then there's those who use laptops.

Blue-ray and HD DVD are new and better than standard DVD, should movie studios forget the majority of people who still use DVD in favour of something better? No... it would be financial suicide.

I'm using a 19" monitor at 1280x1024 resolution and World 2.1 is too big. Now, I am using a higher spec monitor than what the site is designed for, but one of the maps doesn't fit on my screen correctly.

Bigger maps are not suitable for current technology. It's not practical for most people to have large monitors and I consider my 19" monitor at the lowest end of large (maybe it's mid-sized). Maybe when 24" widescreen monitors are the norm for the majority larger map sizes should be considered again.

For the time being though, this is The Final Say on Map Size.

[DiM]

somewhere around the forum (i think in general discussion) i said that it would be nice to have an extra size: HUGE.

some maps are really best played on a huge map where you can see all the details and everything (Age of Realms, Troy, Prisonmax)

what if any cartographer would have the OPTION to design a huge map? since we're talking about a minority of people that have big screens i guess making the huge is best to be optional. let's say up to 1260*1200.
the current playable maps can be revamped by their authors if they chose so.

[KEYOGI]

It has been discussed and is not going to happen.

[hulmey]

I have a 14" monitor and World 2.1 fits perfectly!!! There is no need to scroll down at ALL. Im sure most people have a 14" monitor because this is a standard for computers.

You have not however answered ALL the questions i asked? Are you unsure of the answers or that you just dont want to answer them?

[KEYOGI]

whats the reason behind Lack's decsiion to not want maps over a certain size (if we are permitted to know)...

...to support resolutions of 1024x768 and up without having to scroll horizontally.

Also are there any plans to change this decsion in the future?

Plans... no.

Ps....Was just wondering also the point in having a small map and a large one? Why not just have one size?

To cover all bases. Those with resolutions of 1024x768 and those with higher resolution displays.

For example Qwerts map would not have any problems being made if t werent for the fact that CC wants there to be 2 versions ( a large and small)!!!!

Well, we have two map sizes. It's not like this is a new feature. When people want to make maps they should consider the guidelines before anything else. What sense is there in making a map that will never see live play. Trojan War anyone!?!

[hulmey]

i give up

[Molacole]

it's too bad that the people who have the capabilities to see these maps without scrolling and those who are willing to scroll around have to suffer because of this.

I can see why this must be done though with all the people complaining about map sizes being too big it's obvious that the majority of people want smaller maps. All those polls results must have been wrong.


The size of World 2.1 "slipped through the cracks"? That map is insanely popular! go figure...


Would it be too much to ask for certain maps over x amount of territories be put into a category under Start A Game option to let people know the size of it before creating. Maybe even a join game option with join game-Large maps or join game-small maps or join game-all maps.


kind of sucks that the cartographers aren't going to create huge maps for team games. Especially since team games are so popular yet will never last half as long as a lot of these standard games because of size limitations...

Not trying to engage in an arguement and all, but I had to get it off my chest. I'm a big fan of team games and big maps.

Thanks for reading I'm off to go grab my tissues now.

[DiM]

imagine a 300 terit map

[mibi]

somewhere around the forum (i think in general discussion) i said that it would be nice to have an extra size: HUGE.

some maps are really best played on a huge map where you can see all the details and everything (Age of Realms, Troy, Prisonmax)

what if any cartographer would have the OPTION to design a huge map? since we're talking about a minority of people that have big screens i guess making the huge is best to be optional. let's say up to 1260*1200.
the current playable maps can be revamped by their authors if they chose so.

this is a good idea. I am all for giving people more choices, not less. Its a shame that lack et all have sacrificed the creative potential of this site for the dwindling number of people using increasing outdated technology.

And they also make it seem like people on 1024x768 detest over sized maps and refuse to play them. Um, is anyone complaining about the size of the maps besides the mods? It seems world 2.0 has been an enormous and enduring success. Perhaps this should be a sign that the priorities of the players have size ranked over convenience.

CC should change with the times, not keep one foot in the past hoping not to offend anyone who wouldn't be offended anyways.

All I am saying is that there should be a choice in the matter, that would the fairest for all. No one is forcing anyone to play a map. But with these outdated regulations, we are being forced not to play the wonderful maps that could be.

[hulmey]

I think its just stupid. Thats why the small maps are around because if peoples monitors are too small they have the option of using the small map. So they are already catered for in that way.

To me there is something fishy going on and more than meets the eye. Or otherwise the management is being mis-informed or short sighted.

I have not seen 1 single player saying they dont want bigger maps and i would like to see what the general consenus is of the players of CC. Maybe a properly worded poll would be a good idea to see what the players want. After all Lack and CC has always listened to what the players want. Thats why the this site is so good.

[The Fuzzy Pengui]

Make sure you put the Poll in the Suggestions Forum so the right people look at it. I like the idea of larger maps for some, but I also agree with regulations or people would go absurdly large with what they create. Maybe the 3rd option is a good idea, if the mapmaker wants it, but if you have to create one that large, then how will you shrink it to look good on the smaller size? Remember, maps now have to be 2 sizes, and if you want to add a 3rd size because it's too big, you cannot say "it's too squished for the small size, I can't make the small one". This is why the guidelines are in place. I love the idea of HUGE maps, but I foresee it causing a lot of problems.

[hulmey]

What problems could it possibly bring....If i dont like a map for whatever reason. I just dont play it. Its quite simple and the best map out there (not including classic) is the largest map of them all.

When that was made i saw a few people posting that they would never play it but now considering its size its the most popular map out there.

Again you dont want to over do the size but i and many others think there is scope for another size ( no bigger than world 2.1 maybe).

Again i have a standard 14" monitor and have no need to scroll down to see the whole map!!

[The Fuzzy Pengui]

The problem I see right now is that people want to make huge maps (which I personally like), but when that map is shrunk down to the small size it will become unreadable or squished. I love the idea of huge maps, but if it causes map makers to only make a huge size and forget about having to have a small and large maps then it could cause a lot of arguements and confusion. Other than that, I LOVE THE IDEA!

[KEYOGI]

It has been discussed and is not going to happen.

[The Fuzzy Pengui]

Keyogi has already said in another post that the small World 2.0 should not have made it. It slipped through the cracks. The map making process is evolving and Lack has made his choice. He says the these are the limits then they are.

The end.