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

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 10:09 am

i come again with the same request. could a mod give me an answer on world 3.0? thread in my sig.

wicked · Post by **wicked** » Sat Aug 25, 2007 8:14 pm

It's being discussed.

gimil · Post by **gimil** » Sat Aug 25, 2007 8:17 pm

wicked wrote:It's being discussed.

since when did the lovely wicked play a part in the foundry?

KEYOGI · Post by **KEYOGI** » Sat Aug 25, 2007 8:38 pm

Map Foundry
Moderators: KEYOGI, Mod Squad

Group name
Mod Squad
Group Moderator
lackattack
Group Members
AK_iceman
AndyDufresne
moz976
wicked

The Map Foundry has many eyes and ears.

gimil · Post by **gimil** » Sat Aug 25, 2007 8:42 pm

moderating the map foundry is rather different from actively influencing map development. But what do i know eh?

wicked · Post by **wicked** » Sat Aug 25, 2007 9:15 pm

I be just a messenger.

gimil · Post by **gimil** » Sat Aug 25, 2007 9:16 pm

wicked wrote:I be just a messenger.

and that was very kind of you miss. wicked

hulmey · Post by **hulmey** » Mon Aug 27, 2007 1:45 am

well at least she answered you guys when no1 else did!!!

gimil · Post by **gimil** » Mon Aug 27, 2007 5:17 am

hulmey wrote:well at least she answered you guys when no1 else did!!!

and im sure DiM appreciates it

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Mon Aug 27, 2007 10:07 am

gimil wrote:
hulmey wrote:well at least she answered you guys when no1 else did!!!
and im sure DiM appreciates it

i sure do. if it's being discussed then there is hope.

Marvaddin · Post by **Marvaddin** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 9:27 am

I admit I didnt read all the discussion, but I read like 6 pages of it. I simply dont understand why all this discussion. Whats the real problem of scrolling down? I always did it! And it never will make me give up any game. Now I have a 17' monitor, but I love 800 x 600 resolution, and I was using it until some months back. I needed to scroll down even in the classic map. Note: the classic can really be the smallest map, because number of armies can be put over names, borders, etc. Another maps dont have this "privilege". Now Im using 1024 x 768 resolution, small maps, and the Arctic map, for example, makes me scroll down. So, whats the problem about scroll down? Do you think it makes someone abandon the site? Im sure other risk sites have more maps that I could play without scroll down. Look at the statistics about all risk sites.

Be sure: what makes this site so awesome is the foundry, the good amount of interesting maps and the number of ideas still coming. Looks like we will soon need an alternative to the thumbs in the "create a game" page. If some maps are really awesome with a larger size, whats the problem? People would play it, and this world 2.1 (that all you know I hate) is a proof of this. Scrolling down is no problem to most people, and for those that it is, there are already many maps.

Im much more worried about badly constructed continents and bonuses. You remember that I used to give a good amount of advice in the foundry. Then I got tired of bad criticism about me, and people making themselves leaf to my advice. What they always said: if you dont like the map, dont play it. So, if I dislike the map, I shouldnt play. Anyway, if a map is good enough, I dont care about scrolling down. So, how about if we use the same argument: if you dislike scrolling down, dont play it. Others will do, like me.

Im not defending maps should have wasted space, but if its a better map being larger, kick this fucking guidelines away and let us "scrollers" play it!

Qwert · Post by **Qwert** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 4:48 pm

It is posible to put map with biger dimension on some trial period,to people play map and give more opinion of map with biger dimension?

KEYOGI · Post by **KEYOGI** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 6:19 pm

I don't see Lack agreeing to that... at least not at the moment. If there's ever a testing phase for maps, maybe then.

Qwert · Post by **Qwert** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 4:47 pm

KEYOGI
Cartography Assistant

Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1624

Posted: 04 Sep 2007 23:19 Post subject:

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

I don't see Lack agreeing to that... at least not at the moment. If there's ever a testing phase for maps, maybe then.

Thanks for any answer.

Chirondom · Post by **Chirondom** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:58 pm

Um...perhaps an odd suggestion, but why not make everyone happy and let there be a full screen version of all maps? It could launch a new window with just the game, not the logo or anything else.

WidowMakers · Post by **WidowMakers** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:23 pm

Chirondom wrote:Um...perhaps an odd suggestion, but why not make everyone happy and let there be a full screen version of all maps? It could launch a new window with just the game, not the logo or anything else.

Because Lack wants to have every map available in a small version.

The debate is not really about how big the big map can be but how big the small one can be.

oaktown · Post by **oaktown** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 11:41 pm

Please keep in mind, oh proponents of bigger maps, that a big map can suck just as much as a small map. I imagine that if somebody made a map that LOOKS GOOD and is EXTREMELY PLAYABLE, most regulars to the foundry will push to see it forged regardless of the size.

It seems to me that the standards for what gets forged/quenched recently dropped at this site. Is somebody in a hurry to get more maps in play? Maybe we should go back to being concerned with how a map looks and how it plays and put less effort into the fight over how big the thing can be.

hulmey · Post by **hulmey** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 12:34 am

it certainly dropped when chinese checkers came out

oaktown · Post by **oaktown** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 1:10 am

hulmey wrote:it certainly dropped when chinese checkers came out

very clever hulmey.

I'm not going to defend chinese checkers. I've been stuck in some dull-ass games on that map, and it's a bad map with some settings (like no cards... ugh). But it did go through a four-month foundry process and there were over 500 posts before it was quenched, so I am a believer in the foundry process.

Anyway, I'll restate my point: most of the regulars in the foundry are more concerned with how a map looks and how it plays than how big it is. I'm sure that an exception can be made for a big map that is really friggin' good, but we shouldn't go making exceptions for maps that kinda suck.

yeti_c · Post by **yeti_c** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 1:21 am

oaktown wrote:
hulmey wrote:it certainly dropped when chinese checkers came out
very clever hulmey.

I'm not going to defend chinese checkers. I've been stuck in some dull-ass games on that map, and it's a bad map with some settings (like no cards... ugh). But it did go through a four-month foundry process and there were over 500 posts before it was quenched, so I am a believer in the foundry process.

Anyway, I'll restate my point: most of the regulars in the foundry are more concerned with how a map looks and how it plays than how big it is. I'm sure that an exception can be made for a big map that is really friggin' good, but we shouldn't go making exceptions for maps that kinda suck.

For the record I still like Chinese Checkers - and I reckon it's a good map.

C.

hulmey · Post by **hulmey** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 3:40 am

Yeti you like XML so you dont count

Oaktown more foundry members and forum members want bigger maps than those that do not...

Ps...couldnt resist the chinese checkers jab epically as its in your Sig..Good work so far on your new map

WidowMakers · Post by **WidowMakers** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 5:37 am

hulmey wrote:Oaktown more foundry members and forum members want bigger maps than those that do not...

I would agree with you here hulmey. Many others want larger maps.

The issue is that the owner of the site, lackattack, wants small maps to stay at the size they are. Small maps need to be available for all maps and need to be playable. I agree with this point of view. There are a lot of people who use the small map (I am one of them). I use it so I don't need to scroll. Could I scroll? Yes. But I am glad I don't need to right now.

So it is not really a distaste for large maps, it is a concern that only large maps will be built and small will go away. Lack does not want that. That is why there are currently size restrictions.

So until someone can make a 630 (wide) x 600 (tall) small map with all of the information and data from a 1200 x 1200 map. Make sure that maps are the same playability and legibility. I really don't think there will be a case for "WE WANT BIGGER MAPS BECAUSE WE SAID SO"

There are reasons that lack wants small maps. It is his site and he gets to make the final call. And believe me, I know he appreciates the work all of us do by making him maps. If he only cared about the number of map son the site I am sure he would just say give me anything. But he does care and wants all players (those who use small and large) to be able to enjoy a good game experience with each map.

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 6:47 am

WidowMakers wrote: someone can make a 630 (wide) x 600 (tall) small map with all of the information and data from a 1200 x 1200 map.

if someone can come up with an idea on this i'd vote him as CC man of the year. it would be a pure stroke of genius

unfortunately i think it's impossible

and while i understand lack's concern and think that his resons are valid i do think we need some changes on this matter.

i've already suggested to make categories of maps for various resolutions.

optimized for 800*600 and above
optimized for 1024*768 and above
optimized for 1280*1024 and above

and in each category the small version of that map has to fit snuggly in the optimized resolution.
this way people will know which maps to avoid if they don't want scrolling and at the same time it would allow for huge maps to be made (troy, supermax, road 2 berlin, world 3.0, age of realms)

i understand the concern that if people are given the permission to make large resolution maps then they will only do those but i really do think it's an unfounded concern.

why? simply because we have andy and keyogi to supervise map making and if a guy comes and make a map with 32 terits at a resolution of 1600*1200 he's told to resize it because there would be unnecessary usage of space. andy and keyogi are smart enough to approximate how small a map can be made and still be playable and readable.

and no people won't start making only 300 terit maps just for the sake of it. we'll probably have an initial flood of big maps because the market demands them. but after a while the waters settle and the market is regulated. it's all about demand and supply. people ask and we deliver.

KEYOGI · Post by **KEYOGI** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 7:08 am

Just a little update on the situation.

Three versions of a map and other possibilities have been discussed at length, with it pretty much being decided that three map sizes is not the way to go. I understand your point about the resolutions DiM, but it comes with a whole bunch of negatives that outweigh the positive.

There should be another announcement in the not too distant future about map sizes and other foundry business.

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 7:23 am

KEYOGI wrote:Just a little update on the situation.

Three versions of a map and other possibilities have been discussed at length, with it pretty much being decided that three map sizes is not the way to go. I understand your point about the resolutions DiM, but it comes with a whole bunch of negatives that outweigh the positive.

There should be another announcement in the not too distant future about map sizes and other foundry business.

what negatives? please explain them, maybe we can come up with a solution.

keeping fingers crossed about the bolded part