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

[mibi]

It has been discussed and is not going to happen.

for fucks sake Keyogi, just lock the thread if its not open to discussion.

[hulmey]

good point mibi

Lock 'er Down

[AndyDufresne]

The thread will stay open, as we'd rather have all the discussion about map sizes here rather than in various random topics.


--Andy

[The1exile]

The thread will stay open, as we'd rather have all the discussion about map sizes here rather than in various random topics.


--Andy

So it *is* open for discussion?

[AndyDufresne]

For now we are firm standing on our guidelines. Maybe in the future they will change, and we will come back and look at the arguments for and against. Hence the reason this will stay open, so we don't clutter other important threads with the discussion.


--Andy

[hulmey]

So whats the point of having a thread to discuss something your not interested in discussing. You guys been smoking something tonight?

seems abit pointless. I ask a question and get told its not open for discussion!!![/b]

[Qwert]

AndyDufresne Posted: 18 Aug 2007 23:25 Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The thread will stay open, as we'd rather have all the discussion about map sizes here rather than in various random topics.


--Andy

KEYOGI wrote:
KEYOGI wrote:
It has been discussed and is not going to happen.

We can discuse of what?Keyogi open topic to say that these a final word,and i dont se point of these topic,because every opinion not worth nothing if these decision nobody can change except Andy and keyogi.
I just can se that every body want to play map with large number of terittory,but these option is locked for all map authors,and discusion is pointles.

[AndyDufresne]

Perhaps discussion was the wrong word, if you can't understand hulmey. The thread, like I stated earlier, is being kept open so all the 'talk/rants/arguments/etc' aren't cluttering up other topics.

And Qwert, the decision wasn't made by Keyogi and I. These guidelines have been in place ever since Lack started Conquer Club. We are just enforcing them.


--Andy

[hulmey]

Not to be a pain in the arse but if i want to rant and rave i can open up my own thread.

A discussion it is not, so as well as sticking it. Why not just lock it. After all it is a announcement by the management telling map authors that the sizing of maps is not gonna change!!

So whats the point of discussing, ranting or raving about it here

[mibi]

Not to be a pain in the arse but if i want to rant and rave i can open up my own thread.

A discussion it is not, so as well as sticking it. Why not just lock it. After all it is a announcement by the management telling map authors that the sizing of maps is not gonna change!!

So whats the point of discussing, ranting or raving about it here

for real. this thread is not going to keep mapmakers from smashing their heads against the size limitations or ranting about CC lack of creative possibility.

It would naive to think this issue will go away or could be contained to this thread.

[Coleman]

I guess I'll use my words.

World 2.1 is a very popular map. Many maps outside our current guidelines that are in development are dwarfed by this map. One such example:



Now, I've heard all sorts of different arguments in defense of the new guidelines against this. The one I plan to refute with this post is that World 2.1 wouldn't pass the foundry today.

We are currently in the process of revamping most of the maps that don't meet the foundry standards. It is the belief of moderators here that these new guidelines should be adhered to and that any great map should be able to exist within them.

I know that Keyogi can make maps, and that by, whatever circumstance, he is the one most often defending these guidelines. I challenge Keyogi to revamp World 2.1 to fit within these guidelines without changing any of its game play. This 'standard' version of World 2.1 should not be less popular then the current version in the eyes of the community.

If this is impossible, perhaps World 2.1 should be removed since it doesn't fit these guidelines. We can see what people think of that.

Edit: I guess my real position is. I don't see what the harm is in letting these maps play out. Moderator intervention seems to be coming earlier and earlier in the design process. My view is if things ultimately end up not working out they will die, they can be removed from the site, they can just never be posted. But you shouldn't mess with people's development time until they indicate they are ready to be messed with.

[Twill]

Alright, to make it a discussion, let me add another side to the conversation.

Seeing as this is the Foundry where primarily designers hang out, and few of "the rest" of us come, we are seeing a very one sided debate which is over what the *designers* want (primarily) : to have a free reign over what they design, clearly without the usability of those of us unable to own that fancy widescreen monitor (and really, that was just a silly argument to say people should just go buy monitors so someone can design a large map...really, it was)

Conquer club is not only a site for playing fantastically cool maps (which it is) but it is also a site about community (one reason why Lack opened the Foundry). That community contains people from all walks of life, and all ranges of technology. I for one do not own a large, high res monitor and if you were to make these super large maps I would not be able to play them. Now this is not just me, this is 88% of the stable community (only 12% choose to use large map sizes). 88% of people *prefer* to use the small map size, now this could be for many reasons, but most probably it is because the large map requires scrolling and people choose the ease of not having to scroll.

To add to that, in the time I have been here (I've been around a while) the number of times I have heard people comment on not wanting to play a map because they have to scroll, bitch about having to scroll, complain about the scrolling (note the negative emphasis I'm giving the scrolling thing) and how scrolling detracts from the playability (usability) of a map leads me to think that larger maps are not only not often used, but are considered a pain in the ass and not played as much, even if they are great maps.

If, as seems to be the trend (88% of people choosing not to scroll), people would not play (or more importantly are unable to play) a map because it falls into the "HUGE" category, that would seem to defeat the sense of community which we have tried so hard to create together at this site. If you are actively segregating the community into those who cannot play certain maps and those who can, well now that just sucks. And what if designers, in the effort to create "that perfect map" forget that the perfect map might not be one that has so many territories that it takes a whole year to finish (which in itself sometimes turns people away from it), and perhaps that smaller maps like the brit isles are just as good, and sometimes better than, maps like world 2.0.

Yes, the idea of a 100 territory map sounds great, but not one that 88% of people wont play because they have to scroll and it takes too damn long to play. and if 100 territory maps are allowed now, what next, where does it stop? why not a 300 territory map, 500, 1000...at what point does a map really get too large.

A site like this relies on playability. Simple, easily accessible, easily usable playability. We are not FarCry which needs the latest and greatest to play, we are a casual gaming community and if you, as designers, forget about us, the techno-poor, then there is something wrong with the way the designs are going, in my humble opinion.

So, discussion or no about the logic behind the no-massive-maps, consider this the start of a discussion on the usability prospect of such a large map and perhaps reconsider the bigger-is-better logic you are applying to maps.

Game designers would LOVE to build games that are fully 3D immersive with 120fps at all times, infinate clipping distances, massive polygon counts, hundreds of hours of shakesperean content and direct motion capture controls...but nobody's going to play it because it's not going to work on most machines.

If it's not easily playable, it's not fun, if it's not fun, then people wont play it, if people don't play, people don't come, it people don't come, Lack doesn't make money, if Lack doesn't make money then he has NO chance of getting laid.

so, help Lack get laid: make maps that are usable so that lots of people with lots of different machines can use his site, get sucked into a great community, stick around for a long time and pay him money so he can impress the girls with his really big...site

just something to think about (the discussion, not Lack getting laid)

[Coleman]

That was a long post, but generally what I think is happening is that the long time developers want to make bigger maps. The other ones are still making the normal sized ones people don't have a hard time with.

Most of the recently released maps aren't huge. We are just tired of World 2.1 being the only huge map. There is still the 12% (assuming your statistics are correct) to consider. I'd challenge that 80% of the maps moving through the foundry process are within the guidelines and have no reason, or desire, to go outside of them. Some that do only want maybe 10 more pixels.

Only certain maps, like DiM's recent ones, and qwert with his epic all front map. (which there will probably be 3 normal sized, single front, versions of for people that choose not to play the larger one) are significantly outside these boundaries in their ideal states.

And they are still smaller then World 2.1 even in the sizes they would like that is probably (or in DiM's case very directly) being denied them.

Edit: To go with your game developer analogy. DiM wants to make the high end graphic intensive games that only people with the best systems can play. There is still stuff out there for everyone else. They don't have to touch DiM maps.

[hulmey]

i never heard such alot of shite Twill...I have a basic 14" monitor and i can play World 2.1 perfect it on, without the need to scroll down.

Now if i use BOB the Greasemonkey, well then i find myself scrolling down with ALL maps. Now i imagine over 50% of CC players have this installed. Lets ban BOB the monkey coz it dont fit on our screen.

Your rebuttal will be that dear old BOB is optinal and i will say yes your correct but so is choosing to play on a larger map.

Now for pitsake i dont want to play on a large map like mibi was putting forward ( Troy God) but World 2.1 isnt all that large.

There have to be guidelines because otherwise you would get maps 3 times the size of a 14" monitor (grandstragey have about 4 of these). But we aint talking about huge huge maps but somewhere in the vicinty of World 2.1 which fits nicely on a standard 14" monitor.

[Coleman]

There have to be guidelines because otherwise you would get maps 3 times the size of a 14" monitor (grandstragey have about 4 of these). But we aint talking about huge huge maps but somewhere in the vicinty of World 2.1 which fits nicely on a standard 14" monitor.

To be fair I understand their fear, but it seems like they keep thinking the 6(ish) of us that keep pressing this issue the most are the only people in the foundry and that the whole foundry is going 'to hell' with these big maps.

I know we post a lot and seem to be everywhere, but we are still 6(ish) people. There are a lot of people making the normal maps, and that have these normal maps in final forge.

(I say 6ish because it's kind of an arbitrary number, but we are a very small group.)

[Twill]

I'd challenge that 80% of the maps moving through the foundry process are within the guidelines and have no reason, or desire, to go outside of them. Some that do only want maybe 10 more pixels.

agreed, but then, if you say 10px is ok, why not 20. If one map is given the extra, then everyone will ask for it because of course, their map is going to pwnage the azzk1nz off of everyone else's and people will only complain when it gets rejected.
by standardizing maps, people know what they are getting into and things tend to work much more smoothly with less need to support different aspects and different systems.

And they are still smaller then World 2.1 even in the sizes they would like that is probably (or in DiM's case very directly) being denied them.

I will be honest, I don't know much about DiM's maps, but from what I have been reading and hearing, the *debate* is over maps that are so large they couldn't be squeezed into the *small* size map. If you can make a map which is 100 territories and 1000 by 1000 px but is still as playable on the small size, I would probably support you in that choice (I just think the huge size should be the last version rather than the first - expand a small map, rather than shrink a large one)

Edit: To go with your game developer analogy. DiM wants to make the high end graphic intensive games that only people with the best systems can play. There is still stuff out there for everyone else. They don't have to touch DiM maps.

that "they dont have to touch DiM's map" is exactly my problem - you are intentionally making maps which exclude people. one of best things about this site (in my opinion) is that I can play any map with anyone. What happens when all my cooler friends start hanging out on DiM's map because they have large screens and I get left playing in the sandbox because I came from the wrong side of the tracks? That's right, I realize that I'm a sad sad little man with a small screen.

You are dividing a community if you create maps which are not available to everyone (I'm big on community), and yes, people SHOULD have the chance to choose large maps, but people should also not be told they CANNOT choose a map simply because it doesnt fit their screen.

To use another analogy, people in wheelchairs should be able to eat in every restaurant in the city so that they too can enjoy the company of more physically able people and all the good food that is offered to them.

[Twill]

i never heard such alot of shite Twill...I have a basic 14" monitor and i can play World 2.1 perfect it on, without the need to scroll down.

You can play the large map or the small map on that monitor?

Like I said in my last post, the argument, from my end, is not over large maps, but over maps that cannot fit the small format as well.

I use the greasemonkey script too, but you know what, that IS a choice. If I cannot choose a small version of a map because it doesn't fit on that size format, that's not a choice.

To be fair I understand their fear, but it seems like they keep thinking the 6(ish) of us that keep pressing this issue the most are the only people in the foundry and that the whole foundry is going 'to hell' with these big maps.

who said the foundry was going to hell...it's going from strength to strength, but the small group of you is asking for pandoras box to be opened - once we start getting these large maps in, people will keep pressing for bigger and bigger ones.

I love world 2.0, one of my favourites, but I can only play on small mode, if that went away? then I wouldnt play it. I'm not saying that everyone would, just that 88% probably would...or so the stats would suggest.

[Coleman]

that "they dont have to touch DiM's map" is exactly my problem - you are intentionally making maps which exclude people. one of best things about this site (in my opinion) is that I can play any map with anyone. What happens when all my cooler friends start hanging out on DiM's map because they have large screens and I get left playing in the sandbox because I came from the wrong side of the tracks? That's right, I realize that I'm a sad sad little man with a small screen.

But they (or you in this case) are choosing to exclude themselves by not wanting to scroll. They could still play and scroll. It's not like DiM is making something so awesome your computer can't render it. (Believe me, he really isn't, I still am not sure I even like his latest map.)

Anyway, I'm guessing your rebuttal to hulmey has your attention at the moment.

[hulmey]

My god , we have a commie in our midst. My adopted country Malta had the same policy towards computers. In the 1970's they refused to allow computers to be imported or used in any part of the country. The reason for this was the fear that computers would take away the jobs away from the workers.

Now 25 years later Malta has the most computers per home in the world ( and also cars).

[hulmey]

My god i just read your post Twill and you are a funney lad ( in a nice way).

[Coleman]

You can play the large map or the small map on that monitor?

Some people have this thing called resolution that they adjust. It works wonders.

[hulmey]

i never tried adjusting mine. Just left it how it was lol.

[Jota]

I suspect that in many cases, if your map is too awesome to fit within the guidelines, then maybe it might actually be a better map if it were a little less awesome.

[hulmey]

[DiM]

i'm in a huge hurry so here's a quick post. (will be back later with more ample thoughts)

world 2.1 has created a precedent and the mods have to deal with the problem they have caused. there are only 3 solutions:

1. revamp it and show us a map that large can fit in 630*600 for small and 840*800 for large. then we'll all shut up.
2. remove it from live play because it doesn't follow the rules.
3. allow us to make our maps at least the size of world 2.1.


twill said that if my big map is quenched it will make him feel bad because of exclusivity. i ask him what he feels about world 2.1?

and a question for the mods. the world 2.1 was revamped from 2.0 in the current guidelines and none of you complained. is this morally right? why should one cartographer get one type of treatment and when i demand my map to be allowed to that size i'm told i should quit the foundry and never come back unless i can obey the orders from the mods?