Map sizes

[natty dread]

Well to an extent supersize does present some problems. Not so much because of the large version but because of the small version. It's not small enough to work on many of the smaller screens. I feel like the small version absolutely mustn't be more than 900 px in either height or width.

Ok so because your monitor is small you would deny large maps from everyone? "If I can't play them, no one can"?

So selfish.

I don't really get why people are screaming for some kind of hard limit to map sizes. No one's forcing you to play all the maps on the site! It's a choice!

[Gillipig]

Well to an extent supersize does present some problems. Not so much because of the large version but because of the small version. It's not small enough to work on many of the smaller screens. I feel like the small version absolutely mustn't be more than 900 px in either height or width.

Ok so because your monitor is small you would deny large maps from everyone? "If I can't play them, no one can"?

So selfish.

I don't really get why people are screaming for some kind of hard limit to map sizes. No one's forcing you to play all the maps on the site! It's a choice!

There is an advantage of reading the posts you comment on natty. In a previous post that you commented on I said the only maps that I use the small version on is Kings Court II and Africa II. And when I use the small version on those maps it works well for me. So the reason I suggest an upper limit is not because I'm having problems with it myself. It's because I take into consideration those who have small screens like a laptop or just a standard small screen. So I was not being selfish. You however are selfish because all you care about is to have as few size restrictions as possible so that you can make the maps you want! And the players on small screens who will have to zoom out all the time and squint to see the text will just have to deal with it because you want to make mega maps.
THAT is selfish!

[natty dread]

You're wrong

[degaston]

I think I have the solution for everyone with a small screen:


Now that that's solved, I think I'll go play a game of First Nations Americas on my phone.


Looks like that's not going to work very well. I know - I'll just try to get a requirement that all maps must be sized to work on my phone.


Hmmm... that doesn't work either. Maybe I just shouldn't play some maps if they don't work well on my screen, and let people make whatever maps they want to make...

Nah, I think I'll try to prevent large maps from being created in the first place. if I can't play them, no one should.

And not to threadjack, but did no one notice this:

... the issue is I don't have time to try and comment on all the maps being worked on, so when I comment its usually on my concept after being able to play it as I am a player... not a map maker. And until I can play it I don't know how it effects me...

If you want more people to take an interest in the foundry, you have to let them play the maps in development.

[Gillipig]

You're wrong

This isn't kindergarten natty .

[natty dread]

What are you doing here then? Your arguments are so convoluted and illogical there's really no other way to respond...

Ok, let me try to simplify this for you: there's 2 groups of people, people who want to play large maps, and people who want to play small maps. If a size limit is set that forbids large maps, then small maps people are happy, they get the small maps they want, but large maps people are pissed off. If no size limit is set, then large maps people are happy as they get the large maps they want, and small maps people... are also happy, because they still get the small maps they want, because the absence of size limit does not mean that smaller maps can't be made.

It's not rocket science.

[DiM]

You're wrong

This isn't kindergarten natty .

my dad an kick your dad's butt.


PS: my dad is chuck norris

[DiM]

i actually think that if we lift any size restrictions and allow mapmakers the freedom to do whatever they want, the foundry will regulate itself and provide optimal results.

no map maker will make a 2000*2000 px map if he can fit it in 500*500, at most he'll take an extra 5-10% for fitting some nice graphics. when he goes overboard he'll most likely be told by other map makers and he'll have to optimize space usage. and ultimately every map maker will want to make every little bit of space count and avoid unnecessary super-sizing because a huge map with lots of dead space will be unpopular and no mapmaker wants to be the author of an unpopular map.

[Gillipig]

What are you doing here then? Your arguments are so convoluted and illogical there's really no other way to respond...

Ok, let me try to simplify this for you: there's 2 groups of people, people who want to play large maps, and people who want to play small maps. If a size limit is set that forbids large maps, then small maps people are happy, they get the small maps they want, but large maps people are pissed off. If no size limit is set, then large maps people are happy as they get the large maps they want, and small maps people... are also happy, because they still get the small maps they want, because the absence of size limit does not mean that smaller maps can't be made.

It's not rocket science.

You have an unusually thick head natty. If something someone says doesn't appeal to you, you resort to saying that it's illogical/impossible/false instead of declaring why you don't think the same. It's like you were born without the sense of that sometimes there are not any rights and wrongs, just difference in opinions.
If you can't follow my logic then tell me that instead of replying to it when you don't understand what I'm saying.
Btw what you just said made no sense!
"Small map people" won't be happy if they play random and a huge maps pops up. And don't tell them to not play random because it's a feature in the game and if having a large screen was required then there should be a warning of that. And also the same people can play on different screen sizes. Sometimes you may take your turn on your laptop, other times on your phone etc. So there's not even a such a thing as you describe.
It's important that we don't have too many of these mega maps. And looking at the trends of the foundry I think that's exactly what we'll get if we have no restrictions.

i actually think that if we lift any size restrictions and allow mapmakers the freedom to do whatever they want, the foundry will regulate itself and provide optimal results.

no map maker will make a 2000*2000 px map if he can fit it in 500*500, at most he'll take an extra 5-10% for fitting some nice graphics. when he goes overboard he'll most likely be told by other map makers and he'll have to optimize space usage. and ultimately every map maker will want to make every little bit of space count and avoid unnecessary super-sizing because a huge map with lots of dead space will be unpopular and no mapmaker wants to be the author of an unpopular map.

This only works if we don't have a big difference between what players want and what map makers want. I don't think map makers are afraid of making a map that isn't popular. I mean after all no map made nowadays can compete with the old ones in terms of popularity.

[koontz1973]

Just be grateful we do not make maps on one of these. 30 years old today.


Maps need guidelines, large or small, that is a given. Maps should be allowed to go larger if needed and the extra space is not wasted.

The only way to get around some things is to put a filter on random map so you can choose random large or random small. That alone solves the map size issue.

[natty dread]

"Small map people" won't be happy if they play random and a huge maps pops up. And don't tell them to not play random because it's a feature in the game

Oh. Oh! Also, also, I really don't like playing hive, so they should remove it from play alltogether, because otherwise I might have to play it when I select random! Also, I don't quite like waterloo either. Let's remove that map too so I won't have to play it when it gets selected in random!



Yeah, random is a feature in the game, but the feature is "random", not "randomly chosen from all the maps I want to play". If you want a feature like that, then you should ask for that, but demanding that certain types of maps which many people enjoy should be forbidden just because you don't want to play them is... what's the word again? Oh yeah. SELFISH.

This only works if we don't have a big difference between what players want and what map makers want. I don't think map makers are afraid of making a map that isn't popular. I mean after all no map made nowadays can compete with the old ones in terms of popularity.

That's such an illogical argument. Of course old maps get played more - people know them better, they have had for more time to establish a player base, and also, people are creatures of habit.

Are you really so dense that you think mapmakers only make maps because they want to make a certain kind of map, not caring if anyone plays it? If so, you really have no idea what you're talking about.

[DiM]

I mean after all no map made nowadays can compete with the old ones in terms of popularity.

that's absurd. a new map can be much more popular than an old one.

i'll use 2 of my own maps to avoid upsetting people.
AYBABTU has 115 active and waiting for players games.
AoM has just 59.

so as you see, AYBABTU is more popular than AoM.

sure AoM has more games finished but that's perfectly normal since it's been around for several years, but at this very moment people are playing AYBABTU more than they're playing AoM.