Conquer Club

Lately, I've noticed a few maps where the large version is only about 10% larger than the small... Now I have nothing against those maps or their makers, but I think it's kind of ridiculous to have such a small difference.

I know the absolute minimum size difference is only 9%, but if I recall correctly, the 9% minimum was decided only to stay consistent with the existing maps at that point...

Personally, I feel that it's pointless to have a map in 2 sizes if the sizes are so close to each other that they're practically the same. I think at least a 20% minimum should be required (from small -> large), so that the small map would be no larger than 83,3..% of the large. I don't want any current map or currently in development map to be forced to change their proportions, but I think it'd be fair to require of all future maps.

What do others think?

i think we should get rid of small size and stick with just the large.

DiM wrote:i think we should get rid of small size and stick with just the large.

I don't think that's ever going to happen, nor do I think that is such a good idea...

Majority of CC players play with the small map, and the small map is a very useful function for people with small monitors and people who play with their phones, tablets or netbooks.

I agree to an extent, however I think 15% is a fair minimum.

-Sully

I only play on small maps, and probably only ever will.


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:I only play on small maps, and probably only ever will.


--Andy

+1

Victor Sullivan wrote:I agree to an extent, however I think 15% is a fair minimum.

-Sully

Small to large or large to small?

Small to large.

-Sully

Ok that wouldn't be much of an improvement. What's the point?

DiM wrote:i think we should get rid of small size and stick with just the large.

I'm on this ship, get a bigger monitor.

Ok, genius - how do you suppose people change monitors for their laptops or phones?

I don't see why CC would stop supplying the small map when 90% of it's customers use the small map exclusively, and more and more people are going to use smartphones/etc to play in the future - it just seems like a shoddy business practice to me. Especially when the only reason to do so would be to make mapmaking a tiny bit easier for some people.

Then again, considering some of the recent decisions of the CC admins, nothing is going to surprise me at this point...

we should remove size restrictions entirely.
instead, replace them with common sense (CAs). no large/small maps. just one size, the perfect one for each map.

for example if i want to make a huge map with 1000 terits perfect for ultra-mega-giga battle royales i should be allowed to create a huge 6000*6000 px map.

on the other hand if i create a 24 terit tiny map i should be allowed to fit it within 400*400px or even lower if the design permits it.

the idea is that each map should be as small as possible as long as everything is perfectly readable and pleasant, but at the same time allow people to create maps however huge they want.

you're on a phone or a small netbook? no problem, play the small maps. you're viewing CC via a video projector on a 12ft*12ft wall? knock yourself out and play the 6000*6000 map

DiM wrote:no large/small maps. just one size, the perfect one for each map.

Ok see, what is "the perfect size" for a given map? It depends on the resolution... a 1000x1000 map can be tiny on some monitors, while 500x500 can be huge on others (I'm exaggerating a bit) depending on the resolution. That's why it's good to still have two different sizes of each map, to provide options for people. I used to play on the small map on my laptop, but now I pretty much always use the large, it's just friendlier for the eyes...

Also, we already pretty much don't have any de facto size limits - there's the supersize limit but even that can be exceeded in some cases...

natty dread wrote:Also, we already pretty much don't have any de facto size limits - there's the supersize limit but even that can be exceeded in some cases...

so can i make a 6000*6000px map with 1000 terits?

DiM wrote:

natty dread wrote:Also, we already pretty much don't have any de facto size limits - there's the supersize limit but even that can be exceeded in some cases...

so can i make a 6000*6000px map with 1000 terits?

Do you want to make one?

I don't really know if it would be practical, nor if the game engine would support a map like that...

DiM wrote:

natty dread wrote:Also, we already pretty much don't have any de facto size limits - there's the supersize limit but even that can be exceeded in some cases...

so can i make a 6000*6000px map with 1000 terits?

No. I think you have to wait many years before you will be able to play such map. (that tbh I wouldn't play anyway)
About the rest, I totally echo natty.
Have just large is a stupid idea, it makes happy 10 mapmakers and unhappy the large part of the community who use small maps.
It will never happen on a commercial site....it's like say..."Can't you buy a bigger monitor? Then f**k yourself!"
You can't do it on CC and for various reasons; probably you can do it if you are, let me say, the EA(*) or another big company (although they really know that the UI should be friendly in a game, in fact here we're not talking about static pages or a web site like wikipedia, where you can scroll without problems and with all the time of this world).

Even if a day monitors will be changed, resolution will be better....you will have always people that play with big monitors and people that will uses smaller ones. Said that, and specially now with supersizes, I don't see why draw a small version has become a problem...
Things change step by step...

its not about making some mapmakers happy or sad. it's about making each map just the right size without the use of strict measurements.

my slovakia map is less than half the surface of what i'm allowed to use. in theory i could go ahead and fill all that space with whatever i want and still be in the current guidelines. is that normal? certainly not, but current guidelines allow me to do it.

simply put all maps should have just one size and be as small as possible without becoming ugly or hard to read.
that means that if i can make slovakia at 600*300 then that's the perfect size for it, no need to go higher. on the other hand if i want to make a 1000 terit map i should be allowed to do it as long as i obey the same rule of not wasting space and keeping the size at a minimum.

this, plus a better interface like i suggested 5 years ago, where you're allowed to easily drag a map with your mouse or zoom in/out with your mouse wheel would make any map easy to create and easy to play on any environment whether it is your smartphone or your big ass wall size tv screen.

I agree with nobodies and natty here. All maps need a small version! To skip the small version would create more problems for users with small screens/"new mini technology " than it would make it easier for map makers.
I think in some cases there might not need to be a large version though. If the small version is clear and uncluttered maybe the large version is unnecessary!?

Gillipig wrote:I agree with nobodies and natty here. All maps need a small version! To skip the small version would create more problems for users with small screens/"new mini technology " than it would make it easier for map makers.
I think in some cases there might not need to be a large version though. If the small version is clear and uncluttered maybe the large version is unnecessary!?

Large version is needed too - small versions of some maps look really small and hard to read on monitors with high resolution, that's why it's good to have two different sizes

I like having both sizes. It's a good happy medium. Most like to use the small map, some like the large map. What's wrong with that?

I know I used to use the small map exclusively. Then I realized that I could actually change the size of the map, and I started playing more complicated maps, and the large map has become all that I use. But, I have a pretty big monitor for a laptop (17.3 inch screen) so it doesn't bother me to use a huge map. I can understand the other side though. Not all laptops have large screens, people play from their phones, etc.

natty dread wrote:

Gillipig wrote:I agree with nobodies and natty here. All maps need a small version! To skip the small version would create more problems for users with small screens/"new mini technology " than it would make it easier for map makers.
I think in some cases there might not need to be a large version though. If the small version is clear and uncluttered maybe the large version is unnecessary!?

Large version is needed too - small versions of some maps look really small and hard to read on monitors with high resolution, that's why it's good to have two different sizes

I meant for some maps, not all! If a map doesn't look the least cluttered at the small size it might not need a bigger version. Just a thought .

Gillipig wrote:

natty dread wrote:

Gillipig wrote:I agree with nobodies and natty here. All maps need a small version! To skip the small version would create more problems for users with small screens/"new mini technology " than it would make it easier for map makers.
I think in some cases there might not need to be a large version though. If the small version is clear and uncluttered maybe the large version is unnecessary!?

Large version is needed too - small versions of some maps look really small and hard to read on monitors with high resolution, that's why it's good to have two different sizes

I meant for some maps, not all! If a map doesn't look the least cluttered at the small size it might not need a bigger version. Just a thought .

Ok no, you're not getting the point. Monitors have different resolutions. A 1000x1000 image is not always the same size in absolute terms - on a low res monitor it can be 20x20 cm, on a high res monitor it can be 10x10 cm. Having two sizes ensures that the map is more likely to be able to be viewed in optimal size on different devices.

DiM wrote:my slovakia map is less than half the surface of what i'm allowed to use. in theory i could go ahead and fill all that space with whatever i want and still be in the current guidelines. is that normal? certainly not, but current guidelines allow me to do it.

Yeah, guidelines allow you to do it, but those are guidelines not strict rules. If your map has a lot of useless space someone will tell you to go with a smaller size....users and also CAs did this in past and do this today. I don't think it needs to be written, it's a sort of unwritten rule: "use the space you really need, but keep in mind you have some limits".
Good and experienced mapmakers, like you , easily understand what is the space they need. Novice mapmakers maybe need some advice, but it's not a so big issue.
Nowdays, we need just to be sure that maps fit the UI (that's the reason we have limits)...when we will have a new UI (you don't know how much I agree with you about the necessity of a better one) maybe we can discuss about modify/update these limits.

Lackattack recently gathered some stats about browser resolutions.

1. 1366x768 15.50%
2. 1280x800 13.82%
3. 1024x768 8.03%
4. 1440x900 7.64%
5. 1280x1024 7.25%
6. 1920x1080 7.13%
7. 1680x1050 5.92%
8. 1600x900 5.07%
9. 320x480 3.65%
10. 768x1024 2.65%

Small maps are definitely always appreciated and needed. In fact, I think some of the small maps we've had over the last year or so are pushing the limits of being too big to really be 'small.'!


--Andy

Interesting statistics, especially those (, 10) showing people playing in portrait mode (rotated monitors, smartphones, tablets?). I recently lost my rotatable monitor at work. I went from a large 4:3 screen to a shorter but wider 16:9 format, with probably about the same area overall, but the new one doesn't turn. The display adapter will still flip the screen around, but that is of little use.