Age of Realms: Age of Might [Quenched]

hulmey · Post by **hulmey** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 4:36 am

i prefer WM's mountains......

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 4:44 am

hulmey wrote:i prefer WM's mountains......

i agree they are better realized but i'd rather keep mine and tweak them some more. because if you analyze the 2 mountains wm has one big mountain while i have several smaller ones. i want to reproduce a chain of mountains not just a single one.

WidowMakers · Post by **WidowMakers** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 5:19 am

DiM wrote:i have already stated my opinion on the size matter. it will remain like this until the time has come to resize it. yes i know this can mean more work when doing the small version but again i have said before that i don't mind.

DiM wrote:i don't mind spending a little extra time fiddling with rearranging names and army shadows. it's worth doing when i know i have the benefit of working on a proper sized map for my monitor.

and regarding the size. i like working on bigger images because of the quality of the details. try doing a map on a 100*100px square and then resize it. it will be horrible.
then try doing the same map 4000*4000px and resize it will look gorgeous.

Dim I did not mean scale the map up. I meant make sure everything fits and when you do the larger map, there can be more detail. And besides I never said 100 x 100. I said make it the size that the small map will be 650x650 or something more realistic.

I just feel you are wasting your time not looking at the small map. I don't think you can get all of the detail down into a smaller map.

Your text is already hard to read. Making it smaller is not better.

This is what the map looks like at 600 pixels. It is hard to read and the borders are fuzzy. But there is plenty of room for you to make it look good.

Spockers · Post by **Spockers** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 5:38 am

DiM wrote:i have already stated my opinion on the size matter. it will remain like this until the time has come to resize it. yes i know this can mean more work when doing the small version but again i have said before that i don't mind.

The you wont mind the fact that it's not in the main foundry.

gimil · Post by **gimil** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 5:40 am

Spockers wrote:
DiM wrote:i have already stated my opinion on the size matter. it will remain like this until the time has come to resize it. yes i know this can mean more work when doing the small version but again i have said before that i don't mind.
The you wont mind the fact that it's not in the main foundry.

and how do you figure that one out?

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 6:05 am

gimil wrote:
Spockers wrote:
DiM wrote:i have already stated my opinion on the size matter. it will remain like this until the time has come to resize it. yes i know this can mean more work when doing the small version but again i have said before that i don't mind.
The you wont mind the fact that it's not in the main foundry.
and how do you figure that one out?

don't bother trying to figure out spockers

Spockers · Post by **Spockers** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 6:20 am

Try reading the last couple pages, gimli, it's not hard to figure out.

Also, you don't need to quote entire posts that are directly above your own.

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 6:37 am

WidowMakers wrote:
DiM wrote:i have already stated my opinion on the size matter. it will remain like this until the time has come to resize it. yes i know this can mean more work when doing the small version but again i have said before that i don't mind.

DiM wrote:i don't mind spending a little extra time fiddling with rearranging names and army shadows. it's worth doing when i know i have the benefit of working on a proper sized map for my monitor.

and regarding the size. i like working on bigger images because of the quality of the details. try doing a map on a 100*100px square and then resize it. it will be horrible.
then try doing the same map 4000*4000px and resize it will look gorgeous.
Dim I did not mean scale the map up. I meant make sure everything fits and when you do the larger map, there can be more detail. And besides I never said 100 x 100. I said make it the size that the small map will be 650x650 or something more realistic.

I just feel you are wasting your time not looking at the small map. I don't think you can get all of the detail down into a smaller map.

Your text is already hard to read. Making it smaller is not better.

This is what the map looks like at 600 pixels. It is hard to read and the borders are fuzzy. But there is plenty of room for you to make it look good.

i appreciate your good intentions wm. i plan on having the small map at around 700*700px and the large at 850*850px (or even 900)

considering the fact that this map is going to be the biggest on the site (judging by terit number) i think the sizes are appropriate.

here is a small version 700*700px with adjusted names.
i think everything is readable and clear (except the legend i haven't adjusted anything there)

i like working on huge maps because this way i can zoom in and add very fine details. details that will most likely be invisible when i resize the image. for example in AoM i have my wife's name written on the map. it's impossible to see but i know it is there and that pleases me.

gimil · Post by **gimil** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 6:37 am

Spockers wrote:Try reading the last couple pages, gimli, it's not hard to figure out.

Also, you don't need to quote entire posts that are directly above your own.

Ive been keeping up this this thread dumb ass.

Im pritty sure that DiM has been keeping up track of how the map will be in a small version, WM has just posted a smaller image and it took me but 5 seconds to realize that with a few text tweaks the map will be easily understandable in a smaller version. Terr names and armies circles wont be a problem either.

Now your post of:

The you wont mind the fact that it's not in the main foundry.

Is implying that the reason this map isn't being moved is because of this silly size issue which is WRONG. The reason is because of a concern with 2 feudal maps being in the main foundry. This issue is in the process of being solved by me and KEYOGI via MSN. Once solved im pritty sure the map will then be moved.

So spocker unless you have any real and valid constructed critisizum or positive feedback please feel free not to post.

MarVal · Post by **MarVal** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 1:42 pm

It looks again amazing, just like your first one!!!

With you as cartographer, CC will have a new sort of gameplay!!

Great worK DiM!!

Grtz
Marval

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 1:47 pm

MarVal wrote:It looks again amazing, just like your first one!!!

With you as cartographer, CC will have a new sort of gameplay!!

Great worK DiM!!

Grtz
Marval

thanks for the kind thoughts Marval. i'm always trying to bring something new on the table.

KEYOGI · Post by **KEYOGI** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 6:18 pm

On the size issue, would it be unreasonable for DiM to work on a larger image and then scale it down for posting on the forums. I think everyone's time is being wasted when comments about graphics are based on an image that won't be used.

As for the actual dimensions of the map, Andy and myself have been pretty relaxed about people stretching the size guidelines. Considering this is a completely fictional setting, there's no reasons for the large map to extend beyond 800x800 and the small 600x600. There's a lot of wasted space on this map, if you want to keep all the detail and territories you've got and get it into a 800x800 map, then I suggest narrowing your rivers.

You've been reminded on the size guidelines again and again DiM, I really don't understand why you would continue to try and work outside these. You know the situation, probably better than most, don't think you're above it all.

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 6:24 pm

KEYOGI wrote:On the size issue, would it be unreasonable for DiM to work on a larger image and then scale it down for posting on the forums. I think everyone's time is being wasted when comments about graphics are based on an image that won't be used.

As for the actual dimensions of the map, Andy and myself have been pretty relaxed about people stretching the size guidelines. Considering this is a completely fictional setting, there's no reasons for the large map to extend beyond 800x800 and the small 600x600. There's a lot of wasted space on this map, if you want to keep all the detail and territories you've got and get it into a 800x800 map, then I suggest narrowing your rivers.

You've been reminded on the size guidelines again and again DiM, I really don't understand why you would continue to try and work outside these. You know the situation, probably better than most, don't think you're above it all.

remember this map has the most terits in CC. why should world 2.1 be allowed to exceed 800 px and this shouldn't?

and there's not a single inch of wasted space. it is a trilogy and the events in each chapter are portrayed on the same map but with graphical changes. believe me what now seems to be an empty unused space is in fact a saved space for future events. i do not want to disclose anything but believe me if i could squeeze it even more i would but at 134 terits (which will increase in chapter 2) i really can't produce something smaller.

Spockers · Post by **Spockers** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 6:30 pm

Gimli disagrees:

gimil wrote: Im pritty sure that DiM has been keeping up track of how the map will be in a small version, WM has just posted a smaller image and it took me but 5 seconds to realize that with a few text tweaks the map will be easily understandable in a smaller version. Terr names and armies circles wont be a problem either.

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 6:35 pm

Spockers wrote:Gimli disagrees:

gimil wrote: Im pritty sure that DiM has been keeping up track of how the map will be in a small version, WM has just posted a smaller image and it took me but 5 seconds to realize that with a few text tweaks the map will be easily understandable in a smaller version. Terr names and armies circles wont be a problem either.

i really don't see your point here

he agreed that a small 600px is viable after a few tweaks and i said i want a 700px small version because i have some plans in chapter 2. if it hadn't been for those plans i would have made it 600px.

KEYOGI · Post by **KEYOGI** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 6:36 pm

World 2.1 is based on real world geography, there's not much that could be done there. Maybe it's time you posted Chapter 2? I'm still not sold on this trilogy idea in the first place.

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 6:42 pm

KEYOGI wrote:World 2.1 is based on real world geography, there's not much that could be done there. Maybe it's time you posted Chapter 2? I'm still not sold on this trilogy idea in the first place.

why would i want to post chapter 2 and waste even more hours working on it when the situation for chapter 1 is still unclear?
when this will be moved to main i will work on chapter 2 and present it to the public. until then it would be just a waste of time.

KEYOGI · Post by **KEYOGI** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 6:48 pm

Well I'd work on your size issues then. Size really does matter.

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 6:50 pm

KEYOGI wrote:Well I'd work on your size issues then.

why? give me a single reason why i should make this 600*600px.

even if i do it it won't be moved to main foundry so what's the use?

KEYOGI · Post by **KEYOGI** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 10:44 pm

From [Official] How to Make a Map thread:

AndyDufresne wrote:You must design two versions of the map: a small (up to 600 px wide), and a large (up to 800 px wide). Height is flexible, but it is recommended that you do not exceed 350 px on small maps and 600 px on large maps so that users will not need to scroll down to attack.

Andy and myself have been pretty relaxed about map sizes, for a small map at 600x600, that's almost twice the height guidelines.

Lack designed the site for 1024x768 resolution, I don't see why you expect you should have special privelages. Feel free to work on the map at higher resolutions, but if want your map to get through the foundry, you're going to have to present your map in the foundry at the appropriate resolutions.

AndyDufresne · Post by **AndyDufresne** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 10:56 pm

It is best to keep within the size requirements, otherwise it just creates uneeded problems.

--Andy

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Thu Aug 09, 2007 4:41 am

AndyDufresne wrote:It is best to keep within the size requirements, otherwise it just creates uneeded problems.

--Andy

if you can come up with a solution for this map to fit in the size requirements i'll give you a gold medal.

KEYOGI wrote:From [Official] How to Make a Map thread:
AndyDufresne wrote:You must design two versions of the map: a small (up to 600 px wide), and a large (up to 800 px wide). Height is flexible, but it is recommended that you do not exceed 350 px on small maps and 600 px on large maps so that users will not need to scroll down to attack.
Andy and myself have been pretty relaxed about map sizes, for a small map at 600x600, that's almost twice the height guidelines.

Lack designed the site for 1024x768 resolution, I don't see why you expect you should have special privelages. Feel free to work on the map at higher resolutions, but if want your map to get through the foundry, you're going to have to present your map in the foundry at the appropriate resolutions.

i have looked at the large versions of the maps available.
out of 44 maps 19 exceed the required size and with a few exceptions all the other maps are right on the limit. this is an indication that rules can be bent if there are obvious reasons to do so and that the requirements need a change. those requirements were made over a year ago. do you have any idea how much have the display prices fallen? each and every year the average display size increases. you're telling me that in 2015 when everybody will have 50'' displays with resolutions of 4096*3072 you'll still have the same requirements? times are changing, big displays are getting cheaper every day and so the guidelines must evolve too.

why doesn't lack run a survey to find out the average resolution of CC users' displays?

back to the maps i looked at. you say world 2.1 has a right to exceed the limits because it's a geographical map.

let's look at 8 thoughts then it is a fantasy map that is 820*650 for the large and 675*535 for the small. instead of 800*600 and 600*350
and it has only 42 terits. if that map at 42 terits was allowed to exceed the requirements i don't see why this map should not do the same thing when it has 134 terits (that will become 150+ in chapter 2). 134 is 3.2 times bigger than 42. i don't want this map to have 320% the resolution but at least a 10-20% can be granted.

edit// out of curiosity i looked at mibi's trojan map. it's height is at 1538px.
both of you posted there. andy did not say anything about the size but keyogi did. however it wasn't a comment like those found here. not for a single second did you tell mibi his map will not go through the foundry. or that he should stick to the requirements. why here you come and tell me i should resize the map to the max allowed or it won't be put through the foundry?

The1exile · Post by **The1exile** » Thu Aug 09, 2007 4:53 am

I like the map. Not too fond of the font for the legend, though, especially on the resource pairs. Frankly don't give a damn about the size, think it would be better just to let DiM do it his way.

Spockers · Post by **Spockers** » Thu Aug 09, 2007 5:28 am

DiM wrote:.
if that map at 42 terits was allowed to exceed the requirements i don't see why this map should not do the same thing when it has 134 terits (that will become 150+ in chapter 2). 134 is 3.2 times bigger than 42. i don't want this map to have 320% the resolution but at least a 10-20% can be granted.

Have less territories then.

WidowMakers · Post by **WidowMakers** » Thu Aug 09, 2007 5:45 am

DiM. You say you have 130+ territories. I see no names. Are there any other borders? It would be interesting to see what your map would look like with all of the "stuff" on it.

The small World 2.1 has a ton of names and some of them barely fit. You want to make more? Prove that this map will work on a small scale with everything or you probably will not get mod support. You don't have to like that, but it seems that is the road this map is currently on.

Also based on your logic that this would be the biggest map on the site (# of territories) and therefore it should be the biggest in size, I see a problem. What if I want to make a 5000 territory map. for example

*World 2.1 has 112 territories and is approx 880 x 770 = 677600 pixels
*OR 6050 pixels per territory

MY NEW MAP
*HUGE-ORIFIC SPECTACULAR MAP has 5000 territories * 6050 pixels per territory
*HUGE-ORIFIC SPECTACULAR MAP has 3025000 pixels
* That is a 5000 x 6050 pixel map.

Do you see the problem here. Just because I want to make a big map does not make me above the law.
So I don't think the logic behind "more territories = larger map no matter what" is valid

Yes maps have been given the ability to "cheat" the rules. Your Age of Merchants does too.
You are only digging yourself a hole by continually arguing.

Age of Realms: Age of Might [Quenched]

what bonus scheme do you want?