Moderator: Cartographers
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.
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: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.
Coleman wrote: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: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.
"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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users