koontz1973 wrote:Lets see where TBK takes this. Medieval, Norman, prehistoric, modern, alien landings, who knows, it may even have Saxons or Romans in it at the end. As long as it has bitching gameplay, I am happy. Leave all of the history to history buffs, game sites should make games that are fun.
then this sounds as the best idea:
Neato Missile wrote:Change the name to Indeterminate Era Britain, then turn one of the castles into a dinosaur and another one into a spaceship.
Leave all of the history to history buffs, game sites should make games that are fun.
QTF
koontz1973 wrote:TBK, I understand your feelings, believe me I do, but it might be wise to see if you can fit it all in the small map first then go large. Draw it without the graphics, make it as small as possible then we can see where to go from there. Add the 88s and names. It does not need to be identical as the large, just the same game play.
Well we'll see what I can do. I'm out of town this weekend so I won't have a chance to try until sometime next week.
We can take bad or stupid decisions, we can make stupid policies, but the FACT is that in the map you have posted there are TONS of wasted space.
quick examples: (60% of space is useless sea, too big title)
The supersize policy are going to change and we're not asking to you all to not go over 630x600 but to use every single pixel more than that size with your brain. It's passed some time but, TBK, you fall again in the same old point: HERE, we don't make maps for art. Your graphics, your gameplay, your idea MUST be utterly servient to the context in which you're trying to develop your map. If you want to make maps for art you have to go to other site, like cartographer guild (btw an excellent site).
Now, If it was for me I would say to those, who have a stupid monitor with a 1024x768 px resolution, to **** themselves; but it's not my site and unfortunately we have to find a compromise specially because there's people here that can tell me what I have to do.
However if you think, there's no point in develop a big map that people don't want to play because it doesn't fit their monitors and the users nowdays are too tired to scroll a page. I know , stupid reasons, but this doesn't mean you have to develop a map that only few will play and that a large part of this site will find unfriendly. In addition the site says that you need a resolution of 1024x768 to play, one of my role is to ensure that (except for very rare and special cases) this is true.
So, I understand your anger, I share some of your thoughts about the new decision to not allow supersize maps all days and with less stricted criterias, but you have to admit that your map has lot of wasted space.
And btw, we listen and compromises are made exactly because we listen, if it wasn't in this way I wouldn't have said to koontz to tell you to try with the "smaller" small version you can develope, but I would say just "no, the size is 630x600". Fit the 888 on castles, cut the territories size/number if necessary, but make it as small as you can, then we will see.
You're aiming your gun against the wrong man...then the fact you are angry...I can understand...but you can't imagine how I feel when I have to take decisions that make you guys agry, frustrated or disappointed. Just I have to take decisions.
It should be possible to mix a Norman map around 1100 with some Plantagenet/Angevin into a map with similar gameplay to what you´ve got.
I doubt you´d get comments about spaceships and dinosaurs if you stick to something like 1100-1300, which usually is considered the "proper" medieval times in northern europe.. (the earlier anglo-saxon times and viking age are often considered quite a separate era from the high medieval times that followed)
hope it is doable while not upsetting history nazis too much.. although you´d have to change some names and borders. (one example is morpeth - I believe it was a town on the east coast, not where it is in your map draft)
It's pretty easy to squeeze out some size from this map.
A quick example:
Cropping and resizing the overly large legend & title will get the image down to 767 x 920. It's still a bit over standard limits - small image would be 690 heightwise.
However, if you were to rotate the image a bit, you could get it very neatly to much smaller size.
This will get the image down to 806 x 855. That's 605 x 640, only 40 pixels over the standard small map - or only 10 pixels if you further rotate it 90 degrees... and that 10 pixels can probably be shaved off somewhere pretty easily.
