BIG maps

laxjunkee · Post by **laxjunkee** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 9:05 pm

My friends and I have always wanted to see some bigger maps, and with the 8 player game now available, they seem more plausible. To be clear, by big maps I'm talking like 250-300 territories. These games could go on much longer and be a lot more fun.

bryguy · Post by **bryguy** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 10:32 pm

laxjunkee wrote:My friends and I have always wanted to see some bigger maps, and with the 8 player game now available, they seem more plausible. To be clear, by big maps I'm talking like 250-300 territories. These games could go on much longer and be a lot more fun.

i just had an idea that might need that many, but man would the xml be hard

edit: the map would be one of King Minos' Labyrinth (from greek legends) and it might be something like this, but different

mibi · Post by **mibi** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 10:37 pm

I am currently work on a 1000 territory map, called Skyscraper!

bryguy · Post by **bryguy** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:14 am

mibi wrote:I am currently work on a 1000 territory map, called Skyscraper!

oh yea! that one takes me forever to reach the bottom of though...

Telvannia · Post by **Telvannia** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 12:46 pm

234 Territories and not too big

(the number is a link)

Coleman · Post by **Coleman** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 12:49 pm

Keep in mind that is at 600x340. I could have had a lot more with 600x600. (And if I make an 8 player version if this one works out well I probably will make it that big.)

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 12:57 pm

i believe pixel world is also within the guidelines and has lots of terits BUT the graphics can't be more than schematic and anything else besides a grid type layout is out of the question.
considering a 20*20px square terit you could actually fit 900 terits on a map. but after you take out some to make room for legend you should still have room for 600. is that the future of big maps? i hope not.

Coleman · Post by **Coleman** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 12:59 pm

DiM wrote:i believe pixel world is also within the guidelines and has lots of terits BUT the graphics can't be more than schematic and anything else besides a grid type layout is out of the question.
considering a 20*20px square terit you could actually fit 900 terits on a map. but after you take out some to make room for legend you should still have room for 600. is that the future of big maps? i hope not.

My hope is the future of big maps is splitting the start a game and game finder layouts up into categories so that we can actually add a category for them that is something like:

"Large Maps (Scrolling May Be Required)"

But to do that we'd need to stop arguing about the nature of splitting maps up and come up with a way to do it we can all agree on.

If you don't like complex we could have a different word. Not Classic?

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 1:03 pm

Coleman wrote:
DiM wrote:i believe pixel world is also within the guidelines and has lots of terits BUT the graphics can't be more than schematic and anything else besides a grid type layout is out of the question.
considering a 20*20px square terit you could actually fit 900 terits on a map. but after you take out some to make room for legend you should still have room for 600. is that the future of big maps? i hope not.
My hope is the future of big maps is splitting the start a game and game finder layouts up into categories so that we can actually add a category for them that is something like:

"Large Maps (Scrolling May Be Required)"

But to do that we'd need to stop arguing about the nature of splitting maps up and come up with a way to do it we can all agree on.

If you don't like complex we could have a different word. Not Classic?

or we could have something i have suggested long long ago:

small: maps optimized for 800*600
medium: maps optimized for 1024*768
large: maps optimized for 1280*1024
huge: maps optimized for 1600*1200 or higher.

that's all nothing about complexity and stuff like that.
and within each category the maps are sorted by rating and each has feedback and info link.

Coleman · Post by **Coleman** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 1:09 pm

I can tell you right now lack would never go for that. He wants all maps to have a 630*600 or less version right now.

The realistic options...

1) It would be a lot easier to just have an extra space where maps larger then that for small would exist with a warning that players may need to use their scrollbars to see the entire map.

2) The alternative is that 630*600 small remains a requirement and we lift the large map celling.

3) Or that 630*600 and 840*800 remain required and we add an optional category for the 'true' super huge version of the map to be (the added xml would be a huge size and hugex hugey tags.)

For 2 & 3 you'd still be limited to all maps needing to at least be functional at 630*600.

bryguy · Post by **bryguy** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 1:13 pm

Coleman wrote:I can tell you right now lack would never go for that. He wants all maps to have a 630*600 or less version right now.

The realistic options...

1) It would be a lot easier to just have an extra space where maps larger then that for small would exist with a warning that players may need to use their scrollbars to see the entire map.

2) The alternative is that 630*600 small remains a requirement and we lift the large map celling.

3) Or that 630*600 and 840*800 remain required and we add an optional category for the 'true' super huge version of the map to be (the added xml would be a huge size and hugex hugey tags.)

For 2 & 3 you'd still be limited to all maps needing to at least be functional at 630*600.

aww but i wanted to make a 800x100,000,000,000,000 size map

oaktown · Post by **oaktown** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 1:14 pm

it's not the size of the map, it's the action of the factions.

bryguy · Post by **bryguy** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 1:17 pm

oaktown wrote:it's not the size of the map, it's the action of the factions.

oh, well still i wanted to make a map that size

well it might have taken a couple of years to scroll down, but still

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 1:26 pm

Coleman wrote:I can tell you right now lack would never go for that. He wants all maps to have a 630*600 or less version right now.

The realistic options...

1) It would be a lot easier to just have an extra space where maps larger then that for small would exist with a warning that players may need to use their scrollbars to see the entire map.

2) The alternative is that 630*600 small remains a requirement and we lift the large map celling.

3) Or that 630*600 and 840*800 remain required and we add an optional category for the 'true' super huge version of the map to be (the added xml would be a huge size and hugex hugey tags.)

For 2 & 3 you'd still be limited to all maps needing to at least be functional at 630*600.

versions 2 and 3 aren't really an alternative. they don't actually bring anything good to the scene. a map that's really big (take troy for example) can only be functional on 630*600 if the small version is totally different meaning that all the fancy graphics are reduced to a horrible sketch with everything crammed into such a tight space. it would be functional but only at a logical level (you have borders connections numbers terits but you have no real graphic support) and to be honest i highly doubt such a map would be quenched.

option 1 is the only good solution. simply have maps that are huge no small or large version just huge versions

edit// also i believe that if such huge maps will be allowed in the future they should be under very tight supervision from andy and you because i don't think anybody wants huge maps just for the sake of having them huge. there has to be a reason (lots of terits, lots of explanations in the legend, etc) and you and andy must make sure that the size while still huge it is kept to a minimum. with no space wasted just for the sake of making the map big.

Coleman · Post by **Coleman** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 1:37 pm

Of course. I'd actually like your idea, but it promotes the idea that people with more expensive stuff (bigger monitors ect) are getting a better play experience, which is why lack doesn't like it.

What is probably going to happen is that the layout is going to be changed or improved and then the max map sizes will be extended as a result. A total lift of the max size is unlikely.

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 1:54 pm

Coleman wrote:Of course. I'd actually like your idea, but it promotes the idea that people with more expensive stuff (bigger monitors ect) are getting a better play experience, which is why lack doesn't like it.

What is probably going to happen is that the layout is going to be changed or improved and then the max map sizes will be extended as a result. A total lift of the max size is unlikely.

then how about a more simple format.

small medium large.

in small you have all maps currently present (except great lakes and world 2.1)
in large you have great lakes and world 2.1
in huge future maps like troy world 3.0, etc

and you'll have the following restrictions:

small: small map: 630*600 large map: 840*800
medium: small map: 840*800 large map: 1060*1000
large: small map: 1060*1000 large map: anything above

this way you don't promote expensive monitors since you mention nothing about resolution. you simply tell that on the large maps you do more scrolling.
plus since out of 65 maps 63 will fit into the small and 2 into the medium nobody will complain most maps are huge i can't afford a big scree and so on.

and since huge maps will be kept under close supervision you'll make sure we won't get a boom of huge maps and that they will be kept to a minimum.

Coleman · Post by **Coleman** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 1:56 pm

You can try to market that. Truth be told Andy would have to like it first, and then lack. I'm not the problem, I'm cool with anything that is a step towards larger maps being allowed.

So draft something up similar to that and then pitch it to them. My assumption is that you won't get very far with it though.

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 1:58 pm

Coleman wrote:You can try to market that. Truth be told Andy would have to like it first, and then lack. I'm not the problem, I'm cool with anything that is a step towards larger maps being allowed.

So draft something up similar to that and then pitch it to them. My assumption is that you won't get very far with it though.

how can i market it?

i've talked about it like 4 months ago and nothing yet. and i'm not going to run around the forum posting it everywhere.
if andy likes it then he will comment and then tell lack.

the most i can do is put it in a separate thread here and hope andy comments.

Coleman · Post by **Coleman** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 2:03 pm

Welcome to my world. PM them, like, all the time. PM me all the time so I have to PM them about it. Figure out his e-mail and e-mail it all the time. Get followers to also pm and e-mail it all the time.

It's to easy to just say no right now. You'd need to make it a big issue.

mibi · Post by **mibi** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 2:13 pm

i got your back, although the skyscraper small map will exceed 1000 in height.

Coleman · Post by **Coleman** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 2:15 pm

mibi wrote:i got your back, although the skyscraper small map will exceed 1000 in height.

You can make a 1000 high version for small if this passes.

Herakilla · Post by **Herakilla** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 2:16 pm

when you market it just state all the things the person wants lol

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 2:20 pm

Coleman wrote:Welcome to my world. PM them, like, all the time. PM me all the time so I have to PM them about it. Figure out his e-mail and e-mail it all the time. Get followers to also pm and e-mail it all the time.

It's to easy to just say no right now. You'd need to make it a big issue.

nah. i'm done being a pain in the ass. been there done that took it to the next level when i saw people aren't listening. i got called a jerk a cheater an idiot and all sorts of funny things. was it worth it? yes because i've managed to get my opinion to be heard and i've caused the important changes i wanted. will i do it again? probably not. i'm tired of wasting my energy.
so i'll just say my opinions and that's all i won't bother convincing anybody.
people around here are very very reluctant to change things.
i'm still waiting for the cheating methods to pop up into the open. i already mentioned there are a few around. 2 have surfaced. 3 more exist.
i wonder if it's gonna take a few more cheating conquerors to finally change rules.
probably when i quit CC i'll cheat my way to conqueror and cause them to change the rules. that's if i'll still care about the site enough to send a warning.

Coleman · Post by **Coleman** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 2:23 pm

It's not anyone's intent to frustrate you out of the site. We need people like you to force change to happen. Even when you were annoying me to death in the organization topic you were helping the process.

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 2:39 pm

Coleman wrote:It's not anyone's intent to frustrate you out of the site. We need people like you to force change to happen. Even when you were annoying me to death in the organization topic you were helping the process.

i didn't say it was somebody's interest to frustrate me. i'm not paranoid.
it's just that through all my life i have been used to fast changes if those changes are good. and so i don't like when despite a change being good it takes a lot of talking and a lot of experimenting and stuff like that. one of the most valuable lessons i have learned is that the key to success is fast adaptability and i don't see that here.

i don't have the time or will to continue nagging people to make a change. if they like my suggestion so be it if they don't then fine by me.

imagine another site identical to conquer club in each and every aspect. and that other site decides to implement huge maps. do you think cc will keep it's members because it doesn't promote expensive equipment? i doubt it. my bet is that many map makers and members will migrate to the other site and lack will lose the battle if he doesn't adapt.

true such a site doesn't exist at the moment but that's not an excuse for stagnation (not overall but only in certain aspects)

edit// one more thing. changes shouldn't be forced. never. if you come in a situation where you are forced to make a change that means your strategy was wrong. you must always be 1 step ahead and make changes before the problem arises. if you wait to be forced then 2 things happen:
1. you lose customers
2. your change no longer has the required effect because:
a. it's a bit too late
b. a change done in haste has the risk of being bugged.

edit 2 //

you should not allow a cheater to become conqueror before you decide to change rules to prevent further abuses
you shouldn't allow flawed maps to become live before introducing a testing facility

and so on.

BIG maps

BIG maps

Re: BIG maps