Map size restrictions debate.

[DiM]

i suggest a simple format.

small, medium and large categories for the maps.

in each category the maps will have 2 sizes like they do now (small and large)

and you'll have the following restrictions:

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

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

plus since out of 65 maps 64 will fit into the small and 1 into the medium nobody will complain most maps are huge, i can't afford a big screen 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]

I'm not concerned about a boom of huge maps as long as they aren't mixed in with everything else.

I'd rather it be called Normal, Large, Huge, then small medium and large as I would hardly classify 840*800 small being medium sized.

[militant]

I really like this idea, i dont think the name of the categories is of the highest importance, as long as we get some new cracking maps that will be fun and allow mapamakers to "strecth there wings" so to speak

[DiM]

I'm not concerned about a boom of huge maps as long as they aren't mixed in with everything else.

I'd rather it be called Normal, Large, Huge, then small medium and large as I would hardly classify 840*800 small being medium sized.

changed.

[WidowMakers]

in small you have all maps currently present (except great lakes and world 2.1)

Just to let you know I redid all of my maps that were too big and brought them down to the size requirements (except 2.1)

WM

[DiM]

in small you have all maps currently present (except great lakes and world 2.1)

Just to let you know I redid all of my maps that were too big and brought them down to the size requirements (except 2.1)

WM

really? haven't noticed. i'll edit now.

then i guess we'll have just world 2.1

[Qwert]

In witch category go mine wwii Europe map-dimension small map 850x500
Also i think that limit for small map is 640x600

[DiM]

In witch category go mine wwii Europe map-dimension small map 850x500
Also i think that limit for small map is 640x600

limit for small is 630*600

and your map will fall under the medium category. because the small map fro ww2 europe has 850*500 and the large will probably be something like 1020*600

[MrBenn]

I ask Andy,if be possible to get permision for same size like world 2.1 have(700px). These might help a little,because 630px its to small.Aim waiting reply.

630 is what we've got work with unfortunately. Perhaps a different font, or follow some of the previous suggestions about the the text.

--Andy

These is going to be very,very hard mision. I dont know what to say on these reply.

[MrBenn]

While I understand about not wanting to set a precedent for allowing 'larger-than-630px' maps, I think an exception should be made for qwerts WWII Europe map, especially as World 2.1 is the map that has set a precedent for allowing 'larger-than-630px' maps.

Many people on the site enjoy the first two installments of this series, and lots of people have expressed an interest in the combined map.

If the map-size limits are going to be enforced across the board (no pun intended), then surely there should be pressure to re-size the World 2.1 map (not a decision I would support, for obvious reasons - ie Classic revamp fiasco).

[Ruben Cassar]

What are World 2.1's dimensions?

I think that large maps with many territories should be allowed an exception on size. The norm should be to adhere to the standard size limits but some exceptions could be made if an experienced map maker is handling the project and qwert has experience. His map would be unplayable with the current restrictions.

[gimil]

Not going to happen boys. You where already told after we extended it to 630px width for all maps that we wont budge any further until we get a UI redesigned to support larger maps on a standard resolution size. Until that time we will be following the same rule we always have, either everyone gets a size increase or no one at all.

World 2.1 was way before my time so I wont comment on it, but with qwerts WWII map he made it to large full well knowing that the restrictions where in place.

[MrBenn]

What are World 2.1's dimensions?

Small = 700 x 610 pixels
Large = 900 x 784 pixels

[DiM]

this has been asked a LOT of times. i have personally fought for bigger maps whenever i had the occasion. or at least for world 2.1 sized maps and nothing.
bottom line as gimil pointed is that it's not gonna happen unless the site is redesigned to fit larger maps.
from what i know a redesign was in the works and that's why lack hired somebody to do it. when it will be available i do not know but all we can do is wait.

[t-o-m]

hopefully sometime soon
ide love to play a big map that took a long time to play

[Ruben Cassar]

Not going to happen boys. You where already told after we extended it to 630px width for all maps that we wont budge any further until we get a UI redesigned to support larger maps on a standard resolution size. Until that time we will be following the same rule we always have, either everyone gets a size increase or no one at all.

World 2.1 was way before my time so I wont comment on it, but with qwerts WWII map he made it to large full well knowing that the restrictions where in place.

Okay then I think qwert should just postpone his project until the new UI is available. There's no way he's going to fit his map in the size limits we have right now. Either that or he needs a major redesign.

[Qwert]

Well,lack tell me that these job is failed(some problems with these person), and who knows when he will continue with these redesign.And 10 month is pass.

Okay then I think qwert should just postpone his project until the new UI is available. There's no way he's going to fit his map in the size limits we have right now. Either that or he needs a major redesign.

Well i realy dont know how to squeze all these thing in map,almost manage to do these then andy tell me that 3 digit must fit and to not overlap,and these is quit imposible.But who knows maybe some map maker is better then me and maybe someon can squeze all these on map.

Small = 700 x 610 pixels
Large = 900 x 784 pixels

Yes these is something what annoing me.First time when we have problem with these map-Mod squad tell that these map also will be resize,but nothing hepend.I think that these map maker will also in trouble if these map be 630px.

[AndyDufresne]

Sorry Qwert, this unfortunately isn't really open for discussion.


--Andy

[edbeard]

even if they would consider giving more space to a map, you'd have to prove that you cannot make the map with the 630px. Qwert has not even come close to doing that. No offense qwert, but all you've done is say 'this won't work' over and over. This doesn't prove anything. Furthermore, it seems quite likely it would work under the 630px width.

[gimil]

Qwerts the fact the image wont all sqweeze in is your own fault. If you couldn't fit it in you shoulndn't of bothered trying.

[t-o-m]

harsh but truce, gimil.
maybe try merging some terits or clipping the eastern front? (or some of it)

[TaCktiX]

Ah, the promise of a time when integrated scrolling maps exist. I'll play someone in Trojan War the second that thing gets Quenched. I must say that we're starting to exhaust the amount of territory you can cover map-wise in the size restrictions we have. Aside from new XML mechanics showing up, there's only so many variations you can pull off in the 600x600 space.

As for WWII Europe, the map just won't look right that small. Supermax looks passing at small size, and that's only because the only "off" thing is the army circles. With a squished version of WWII Europe, none of the territories will look right, explanations for everything will be miniaturized, and the original problem of readability with 888's will not be fixed. If World 2.1 is deserving of an exception for the simple fact of what it added to the Classic experience, then WWII Europe is deserving for what it will add to the complex map experience, REGARDLESS of current policy.

[gimil]

Ah, the promise of a time when integrated scrolling maps exist. I'll play someone in Trojan War the second that thing gets Quenched. I must say that we're starting to exhaust the amount of territory you can cover map-wise in the size restrictions we have. Aside from new XML mechanics showing up, there's only so many variations you can pull off in the 600x600 space.

As for WWII Europe, the map just won't look right that small. Supermax looks passing at small size, and that's only because the only "off" thing is the army circles. With a squished version of WWII Europe, none of the territories will look right, explanations for everything will be miniaturized, and the original problem of readability with 888's will not be fixed. If World 2.1 is deserving of an exception for the simple fact of what it added to the Classic experience, then WWII Europe is deserving for what it will add to the complex map experience, REGARDLESS of current policy.

world 2.1 was at a time before the guideline existed. Whe the guideline was enforced they reduced all the maps to be within them. 2.1 unfortunatly is physically impossible to reduce in the size. Being that it is one ofthe top 5 maps, and you where in a position to either remove it from play for its size and risk an unroar from the thousands of people who play it or keep it up and listen to the argument of the few who pick kand choose the fact on large maps that help there paticular argument?

[MrBenn]

I've read through pretty much all 50 pages of the World 2.0/2.1 thread (which I found quite interesting actually)...

Zim asked a couple of times about what size his map needed to be to fit in with the guidelines, and after mocking up a 600px version, got the following response:

The unfortunate thing about this map, the small map is just horrendous...due to the large area it must cover. Perhaps you can stretch the limit a little bit, and we'll see if we can find something that is still acceptable at the small level.
--Andy

I appreciate that this was before the guidelines were enfroced, but I disagree that it would be 'physically impossible to reduce the size' of World 2.1; look at the sacrifices mibi has had to make on Supermax - if he's managed to get that all to fit, then World 2.1 can be scaled down.

Supermax looks passing at small size, and that's only because the only "off" thing is the army circles. As for WWII Europe, the map just won't look right that small. With a squished version of WWII Europe, none of the territories will look right, explanations for everything will be miniaturized, and the original problem of readability with 888's will not be fixed. If World 2.1 is deserving of an exception for the simple fact of what it added to the Classic experience, then WWII Europe is deserving for what it will add to the complex map experience, REGARDLESS of current policy.

So back to my original point, I think that either World 2.1 should be re-sized, or qwert (and mibi/Supermax come to mention it(neither of whom are hopeless noobs with random rubbish ideas)) should be allowed an exception to the normal guidelines.

[AndyDufresne]

Option 3: World 2.1 is Grandfathered in, and we enforce the regulations as we continue to do so until we get a new UI. That's the only thing that will happen...as I said, this unfortunately isn't up for discussion.