Map sizes

Topics that are not maps. Discuss general map making concepts, techniques, contests, etc, here.

Moderators: Cartographers, Global Moderators

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Should the small maps be required to be smaller like many of the older maps are?

Yes
11
50%
No
9
41%
It depends
2
9%
 
Total votes : 22

Re: Map sizes

Postby thenobodies80 on Thu Apr 19, 2012 9:07 am

ljex wrote:I really dont mind scrolling a little bit for a map, but for kings court II or the NA/SA map whatever that is called, i can only really see about half the map at any given time which makes it really hard to gain a perspective on the situation of the game.


I understand what you're saying. But those 2 maps are the only two exceptions we have allowed with a so big size.
What I need to understand is what people really want (and with people I mean players).
For example a map like my Africa II is too high?
Without considering those two maps that are really high for everyone's monitor, what other supersized maps can't fit your monitor or are really annoying for the scroll/bad percepition of the game situation?
I'm going to change the size restriction to not have this type of problems, but I want to go in the right way and don't have to change the rule and then change it again and again...I'm not so much a "attempts" guy...if you get what I mean.

So help me to help you.;)
Pick up two maps, one that has a perfect size for your monitor and one that is too big (but not KC2 or FNA)

Thanks :)

Give every man your ear, but few thy voice. Take each man's censure, but reserve thy judgment.
show
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class thenobodies80
Foundry Foreman
Foundry Foreman
 
Posts: 5640
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:30 am
Medals: 70
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Bot Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
General Achievement (8) Map Contribution (7) Tournament Contribution (6) General Contribution (17)

Re: Map sizes

Postby swimmerdude99 on Thu Apr 19, 2012 9:13 am

thenobodies80 wrote:I just want to ask a thing about the poll....what does it mean smaller?
I mean sincesize is something relative and mostly it depends on the hardware people have....with smaller you mean how many pixels? The old 630x600 ? smaller? Bigger?
Without set a perfect small size limit required it's difficult to have a concrete and constructive discussion about this.
What's the biggest map image you can see on your monitors?

I want to clarify why remove the left side bar can change things:
1. maps can be larger instead of taller
2. The dropdown menu (game menu) can be moved on the right side, under player names! Like in this example:

Click image to enlarge.
image


Isn't this better than have smaller, less detailed, uglier maps? ;)


I guess the main thing that has pushed me to be aggravated are two maps, I wanted to play trafalgar, but the wideness an height of it seems a little rediculous and it annoys me. Your example is for me, the LARGEST I would want to see a small map. Also you question doesn't allow for a good counter response you asked "isn't this better than have smaller, less detailed, uglier maps?"
I don't think smaller maps, are ugly. I also don't think they lose that much detail! So my answer is I don't think making is smaller will hurt the quality of maps, it will rather enhance the quality of play.

As to your question to Ljex. I guess my favorite maps are ones like Antarctica, it doens't seem like an ugly map to me, yet it is small and easy playing size. Island of Doom is about the tallest I want to see, I really prefer the map to be square or only slightly different in hieght and width.
Image

High Score: 2992
User avatar
Major swimmerdude99
 
Posts: 1082
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 6:07 pm
Location: North Carolina
Medals: 85
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (3) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (3)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (3)
Cross-Map Achievement (4) Beta Map Achievement (1) Battle Royale Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (14)
General Achievement (9) Clan Achievement (8) Tournament Contribution (1)

Re: Map sizes

Postby thenobodies80 on Thu Apr 19, 2012 9:42 am

swimmerdude99 wrote:I don't think smaller maps, are ugly. I also don't think they lose that much detail! So my answer is I don't think making is smaller will hurt the quality of maps, it will rather enhance the quality of play.


I'm starting to think this is the main issue. The really different perspective between the mapmakers point of view and the "just" player one.
That's why I want to change a process that now it seems more done to produce "nice-over nitpicked-some user preference based" maps than maps that are done only to be played.
But let me say that mapmakers didn't receive a new toy to play with in the last 2 years and they want to express at least their creativity in some way.
More space help to do that...I know it's playing site...but don't forget who gives you the "ground" on which you play.

Anyway...we'll find a compromise...although I would prefer to see players like you come here more often and not just to complain when something is wrong. :mrgreen:
We need to know what the players think!

Nobodies

Give every man your ear, but few thy voice. Take each man's censure, but reserve thy judgment.
show
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class thenobodies80
Foundry Foreman
Foundry Foreman
 
Posts: 5640
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:30 am
Medals: 70
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Bot Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
General Achievement (8) Map Contribution (7) Tournament Contribution (6) General Contribution (17)

Re: Map sizes

Postby Leehar on Thu Apr 19, 2012 10:01 am

thenobodies80 wrote:Anyway...we'll find a compromise...although I would prefer to see players like you come here more often and not just to complain when something is wrong. :mrgreen:
We need to know what the players think!

Nobodies


I used to try come in often, but things just got so huge and so much was happening with new maps coming etc, that it seemed impossible to keep up with, and once it dropped off the radar it was too much to catch up with, that that that...
Yeah.

I guess in a sense it's similar to this discussion of map sizes? There's too much map to fit your screen & so there's so much (seemingly) happening in the foundry, it's hard to get involved in and start off small.

I'm not sure I'd know the solution, and I'm sure everybody has idea's on how to make people get more involved here, it just somehow becomes too high a bar to jump to get involved?
Image
show
User avatar
Brigadier Leehar
Head Clan Director
Head Clan Director
 
Posts: 5961
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 12:12 pm
Location: Graduation Ceremony
Medals: 125
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (4) Beta Map Achievement (1) Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (31)
General Achievement (21) Clan Achievement (13) Training Achievement (7) Challenge Achievement (1) General Contribution (8)

Re: Map sizes

Postby cairnswk on Thu Apr 19, 2012 10:47 am

i actaully don't think its the map sizes that need to change so much...it's the UI. There's a bunch of stuff that could be done to make the interface better and more effiecient.
One thing would be to put maps inside a frameset that have scroll bars on them so that players could scroll to various bits of the map.
I notice that Trafalagar was mentioned, yet the height on the small map is only 650px...50 px bigger than the old small size, so i really don't see what the hieght issue was there - the width i can understand. There is about 130px on the left of that map that is there simply for visual representation of gameplay. If this map had a scroll bar, you'd be able to play the map by hiding that section of the map.
I'm inclined to agree with Dim and natty on this issue - it was suggested long ago to lackattack that the UI could change for the better, but...
User avatar
Corporal cairnswk
 
Posts: 11490
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 8:32 pm
Medals: 50
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) General Achievement (2) Map Contribution (35) General Contribution (3)

Re: Map sizes

Postby ljex on Thu Apr 19, 2012 10:55 am

thenobodies80 wrote:
ljex wrote:I really dont mind scrolling a little bit for a map, but for kings court II or the NA/SA map whatever that is called, i can only really see about half the map at any given time which makes it really hard to gain a perspective on the situation of the game.


I understand what you're saying. But those 2 maps are the only two exceptions we have allowed with a so big size.
What I need to understand is what people really want (and with people I mean players).
For example a map like my Africa II is too high?
Without considering those two maps that are really high for everyone's monitor, what other supersized maps can't fit your monitor or are really annoying for the scroll/bad percepition of the game situation?
I'm going to change the size restriction to not have this type of problems, but I want to go in the right way and don't have to change the rule and then change it again and again...I'm not so much a "attempts" guy...if you get what I mean.

So help me to help you.;)
Pick up two maps, one that has a perfect size for your monitor and one that is too big (but not KC2 or FNA)

Thanks :)


Trafulgar is about as high of a map as i would like to see vertically and no map has ever not fit horizontally so that is not an issue for the moment.

thenobodies80 wrote:
swimmerdude99 wrote:I don't think smaller maps, are ugly. I also don't think they lose that much detail! So my answer is I don't think making is smaller will hurt the quality of maps, it will rather enhance the quality of play.


I'm starting to think this is the main issue. The really different perspective between the mapmakers point of view and the "just" player one.
That's why I want to change a process that now it seems more done to produce "nice-over nitpicked-some user preference based" maps than maps that are done only to be played.
But let me say that mapmakers didn't receive a new toy to play with in the last 2 years and they want to express at least their creativity in some way.
More space help to do that...I know it's playing site...but don't forget who gives you the "ground" on which you play.

Anyway...we'll find a compromise...although I would prefer to see players like you come here more often and not just to complain when something is wrong. :mrgreen:
We need to know what the players think!

Nobodies


For about a week i tried to come in here and post, but there is just so much going on it becomes hard to keep up. I love the work you guys do creating so many maps of different styles. I guess i could make more of an effort to come post for at least the beta maps though.
User avatar
Captain ljex
 
Posts: 2943
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 12:12 am
Medals: 115
Conqueror Achievement (1) Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (4) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (4)
Terminator Achievement (3) Assassin Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (4) Freestyle Achievement (4) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (3)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (4) Teammate Achievement (3) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (22) General Achievement (5)
Clan Achievement (12) Tournament Contribution (18) General Contribution (3)

Re: Map sizes

Postby dwilhelmi on Thu Apr 19, 2012 11:27 am

ljex wrote:Look at the size of the hive map, then go look at the size of the kings court map. Hive has more regions than the kings court map though granted there are a bunch of nonexistent regions in Kings court II.

The difference between KC2 and Hive is that KC2 also has the special region icons. If the label were made any bigger, it would cover up the icons on those regions that have them. Due to the nature of the hex borders, it wouldn't really work to decrease the size of the ordinary hexes without touching the special hexes as well. If you look at a special hex in KC2 on the smaller map, there really is not any more space available with the number, label, and icon.

I think that, in this case, there is not a lot that could be done to reduce the size any further. In which case, what would the solution be? Not allow this map, or any other map that couldn't be made smaller? I don't think that is the right solution.

Maybe a better solution would be to try to get Lack to add some sort of option for random games to not allow oversized maps? Dunno.
User avatar
Brigadier dwilhelmi
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:05 am
Medals: 37
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (2) General Achievement (3)
Clan Achievement (9) General Contribution (1)

Re: Map sizes

Postby natty dread on Thu Apr 19, 2012 11:50 am

I keep trying to explain but no one seems to get it...

Bitmaps cannot be scaled infinitely. Monitors have finite resolution. If a map is made into a certain size, you can't just arbitrarily say "make it smaller", because it doesn't work that way. If you don't care about the quality or readability of the image, just zoom out in your browser, that will solve your problem.

Secondly, it's pretty damn selfish to demand that large maps should be banned just because they don't fit your monitor. No one forces you to play any map you don't want to play, why not stick to the maps you like and let others play maps they like! Don't restrict other people's map preferences just because you don't want to play the maps they like... like I said, there's plenty of small maps to choose from.

dwilhelmi wrote:I think that, in this case, there is not a lot that could be done to reduce the size any further. In which case, what would the solution be? Not allow this map, or any other map that couldn't be made smaller? I don't think that is the right solution.

Maybe a better solution would be to try to get Lack to add some sort of option for random games to not allow oversized maps? Dunno.


This guys is on the right track. We need constructive solutions, not destructive ones - treat the cause, not the symptom.

ljex wrote:Trafulgar is about as high of a map as i would like to see vertically and no map has ever not fit horizontally so that is not an issue for the moment.


Ever try fullscreen mode? You can toggle it from F11 in firefox...

Trafalgar is only a bit above 700 pixels - large map... hell, the regular map limit is 800 pixels for the large - there's no way maps should be limited to that height. I mean, you can get a 1050-1080 px monitor for less than $100 these days so there's really no excuse for limiting the height under 1000px.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class natty dread
 
Posts: 13257
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:58 pm
Location: fucked off
Medals: 49
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Ratings Achievement (3) General Achievement (12) Map Contribution (12) General Contribution (7)

Re: Map sizes

Postby swimmerdude99 on Thu Apr 19, 2012 11:52 am

thenobodies80 wrote:
swimmerdude99 wrote:I don't think smaller maps, are ugly. I also don't think they lose that much detail! So my answer is I don't think making is smaller will hurt the quality of maps, it will rather enhance the quality of play.


I'm starting to think this is the main issue. The really different perspective between the mapmakers point of view and the "just" player one.
That's why I want to change a process that now it seems more done to produce "nice-over nitpicked-some user preference based" maps than maps that are done only to be played.
But let me say that mapmakers didn't receive a new toy to play with in the last 2 years and they want to express at least their creativity in some way.
More space help to do that...I know it's playing site...but don't forget who gives you the "ground" on which you play.

Anyway...we'll find a compromise...although I would prefer to see players like you come here more often and not just to complain when something is wrong. :mrgreen:
We need to know what the players think!

Nobodies


What else would I do? come in and post "good job?" I post in here when I see something that I think would benifit the site and its users... I always post (or try to post) in here with constructive criticism. My goal with this thread is not to complain but to make the map makers aware of a complaint I have heard from fellow players. I'm pretty sure the only thing you will hear from players as to what they think is things they want to change to make it the way they prefer it... I know you weren't mad or anything... but what are you asking us to do other than "complain"? I made a comment to let people know what I think and what others think... soooo either you want "so called complaints" or you don't... but you can't ask for both!
I'm trying to say that I love the map kings court for example, I was pumped about number 2, but its almost unmanageable to play, but then again, like people have said maybe that can't be helped. Sadly that means I won't be playing it much despite how much I love the gameplay.
The map knights is probably my favorite map for standard and assassin games right now, it is so unique, I love it! Its smaller... yet no one thinks that it is lower quality than any other game do they?
Image

High Score: 2992
User avatar
Major swimmerdude99
 
Posts: 1082
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 6:07 pm
Location: North Carolina
Medals: 85
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (3) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (3)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (3)
Cross-Map Achievement (4) Beta Map Achievement (1) Battle Royale Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (14)
General Achievement (9) Clan Achievement (8) Tournament Contribution (1)

Re: Map sizes

Postby thenobodies80 on Thu Apr 19, 2012 2:31 pm

I'm not trying to argue with you...really.
Just trying to say that if all the people that today is posting in the kabanellas map topic asking for a smaller map had checked the map thread when the KC2 map was in the production it would have been easier for Kabanellas to change the map accordingly the players suggestion than now,when he has basically finished his job, just because the map threads are checked by mapmakers only. And mapmakers care more about the art than the playing aspects.
As said it wasn't a comment against you, but more about the different perspective foundry goers and players have. ;)

Give every man your ear, but few thy voice. Take each man's censure, but reserve thy judgment.
show
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class thenobodies80
Foundry Foreman
Foundry Foreman
 
Posts: 5640
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:30 am
Medals: 70
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Bot Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
General Achievement (8) Map Contribution (7) Tournament Contribution (6) General Contribution (17)

Re: Map sizes

Postby ljex on Thu Apr 19, 2012 2:35 pm

natty dread wrote:I keep trying to explain but no one seems to get it...

Bitmaps cannot be scaled infinitely. Monitors have finite resolution. If a map is made into a certain size, you can't just arbitrarily say "make it smaller", because it doesn't work that way. If you don't care about the quality or readability of the image, just zoom out in your browser, that will solve your problem.

Secondly, it's pretty damn selfish to demand that large maps should be banned just because they don't fit your monitor. No one forces you to play any map you don't want to play, why not stick to the maps you like and let others play maps they like! Don't restrict other people's map preferences just because you don't want to play the maps they like... like I said, there's plenty of small maps to choose from.

dwilhelmi wrote:I think that, in this case, there is not a lot that could be done to reduce the size any further. In which case, what would the solution be? Not allow this map, or any other map that couldn't be made smaller? I don't think that is the right solution.

Maybe a better solution would be to try to get Lack to add some sort of option for random games to not allow oversized maps? Dunno.


This guys is on the right track. We need constructive solutions, not destructive ones - treat the cause, not the symptom.

ljex wrote:Trafulgar is about as high of a map as i would like to see vertically and no map has ever not fit horizontally so that is not an issue for the moment.


Ever try fullscreen mode? You can toggle it from F11 in firefox...

Trafalgar is only a bit above 700 pixels - large map... hell, the regular map limit is 800 pixels for the large - there's no way maps should be limited to that height. I mean, you can get a 1050-1080 px monitor for less than $100 these days so there's really no excuse for limiting the height under 1000px.


I did not know about full screen capabilities i will use that from now on when playing certain maps.

My point is that the regions dont need to be that big, look at the hive map...it is more regions in way less space. I dont mind scrolling a little bit but at the point half the map can fit on my screen that is annoying. Why cant you have the images that define the region type be smaller or even behind the troop's?

I understand that you as a map maker with someone who is most likely very technologically advanced with the things you own think this is great. All i am saying is that its annoying to some people. I don't see why you feel the need to get so aggravated and insult other players. Im not coming here to say that there is zero reason to make a map this size, im saying that i dont see why this map has to be this big and that it is annoying to me and clearly others.

I't demanding anything, im merely suggesting that not all users like these large maps. In the end ill still play them even if they are big it will just be annoying every time i do.

Oh and sure i could not play the maps but that is like me saying you could not design maps that are so big...both are options, that is clearly not a good solution though. I would much rather find a solution that makes everyone happy in all aspects.

the buy a monitor thing...not everyone has $50 to spend on a monitor. for me i dont want to have to use a monitor for my laptop which i would then need a keyboard and stuff like that to be able to be able to fit it on my deck and see the monitor.

the zoom out if you dont care about quality...already told you that causes problems with clickable maps which makes that not an option
User avatar
Captain ljex
 
Posts: 2943
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 12:12 am
Medals: 115
Conqueror Achievement (1) Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (4) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (4)
Terminator Achievement (3) Assassin Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (4) Freestyle Achievement (4) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (3)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (4) Teammate Achievement (3) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (22) General Achievement (5)
Clan Achievement (12) Tournament Contribution (18) General Contribution (3)

Re: Map sizes

Postby ljex on Thu Apr 19, 2012 2:39 pm

thenobodies80 wrote:I'm not trying to argue with you...really.
Just trying to say that if all the people that today is posting in the kabanellas map topic asking for a smaller map had checked the map thread when the KC2 map was in the production it would have been easier for Kabanellas to change the map accordingly the players suggestion than now,when he has basically finished his job, just because the map threads are checked by mapmakers only. And mapmakers care more about the art than the playing aspects.
As said it wasn't a comment against you, but more about the different perspective foundry goers and players have. ;)


Me and commander62890 my roommate, have actually talked about this multiple times. We both frequented the foundry for a bit and while i was more of just an observer he actively posted suggestions for maps. Mostly revolving around how to make certain maps better team game play. I dont know the specifics on what maps he did this for but i can say the map makers basically disregarded his opinions and said it wasnt going to happen. Nothing wrong with that at face value, but it discourages people from posting if their opinion is not going to matter. I know after he told me about those incidents even if i saw something that would make a map better i probably wouldnt even bother to go post about it due to the belief that it would just get shoved aside by the map maker.
User avatar
Captain ljex
 
Posts: 2943
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 12:12 am
Medals: 115
Conqueror Achievement (1) Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (4) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (4)
Terminator Achievement (3) Assassin Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (4) Freestyle Achievement (4) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (3)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (4) Teammate Achievement (3) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (22) General Achievement (5)
Clan Achievement (12) Tournament Contribution (18) General Contribution (3)

Re: Map sizes

Postby natty dread on Thu Apr 19, 2012 3:07 pm

ljex wrote: I dont know the specifics on what maps he did this for but i can say the map makers basically disregarded his opinions and said it wasnt going to happen.


Well, I don't know the specifics but I can see two reasons for this -

#1 - if a user comes late in the process to comment on maps, when the map is already in beta, the mapmaker is much less likely to make huge changes than if the comment comes earlier in the process

#2 - mapmakers have to consider multiple perspectives, not just your favorite game type - if someone comes in and says "this map sucks at 2v2 adjacent nuclear foggy, now make these 300 changes" the mapmaker would be an idiot if he just blindly followed the suggestion without considering it's impact on all the other game types

So basically, if you want to join the discussion and give suggestions, go nuts... but don't expect that all your suggestions should be accepted without question - you need to be willing to engage in discussion and even debate and not get offended if the mapmaker has reasons why he doesn't want to implement your suggestion.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class natty dread
 
Posts: 13257
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:58 pm
Location: fucked off
Medals: 49
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Ratings Achievement (3) General Achievement (12) Map Contribution (12) General Contribution (7)

Re: Map sizes

Postby Kabanellas on Thu Apr 19, 2012 5:24 pm

Dukasaur wrote:King's Court 2 is a perfect example. It's insane that the "small" map won't fit on the screen, even vertically. And yes, the labels are almost unreadable, but there's no reason they have to be. There's tons of unused space in each hex, so why do the labels only fill the top quarter of the hex, instead of the whole top half? The old Avalon Hill tabletop wargames were built with small hexes also, but there weren't huge gobs of wasted space in a hex, if the label needed to fill the whole thing, it did. If the font on KC2 was doubled relative to the map hex, the map could be shrunk down by 30% in each dimension while still making the *actual* size of the labels larger and more readable.


To preserve readability of all features/icons, region names (with a decent font size) and still fit those army numbers that not so rarely climb up to 3 figures, I couldn't make the hexes smaller than they are on the small version. And that's a fact. The space used for the legend couldn't be smaller as well, that font was reduced to the limit as far as I'm concerned.

Of course I could have made the map smaller with less hexes/regions, with less features, with simpler gameplay dynamics thus reducing the legend space, with smaller distances between Castles and probably with less Castles/Starting points. But that just wouldn't be that map...

I promise my next map will be much smaller, bordering tiny. I might have to ask for a new stamp, for tiny-size maps 8-)
User avatar
Major Kabanellas
Cartography Assistant
Cartography Assistant
 
Posts: 1470
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 12:21 pm
Location: "Don’t ever wrestle with a pig. You’ll both get dirty, but the pig will enjoy it."
Medals: 63
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (7)
General Achievement (2) Clan Achievement (13) Map Contribution (7) General Contribution (1)

Re: Map sizes

Postby ljex on Thu Apr 19, 2012 7:10 pm

natty dread wrote:
ljex wrote: I dont know the specifics on what maps he did this for but i can say the map makers basically disregarded his opinions and said it wasnt going to happen.


Well, I don't know the specifics but I can see two reasons for this -

#1 - if a user comes late in the process to comment on maps, when the map is already in beta, the mapmaker is much less likely to make huge changes than if the comment comes earlier in the process

#2 - mapmakers have to consider multiple perspectives, not just your favorite game type - if someone comes in and says "this map sucks at 2v2 adjacent nuclear foggy, now make these 300 changes" the mapmaker would be an idiot if he just blindly followed the suggestion without considering it's impact on all the other game types

So basically, if you want to join the discussion and give suggestions, go nuts... but don't expect that all your suggestions should be accepted without question - you need to be willing to engage in discussion and even debate and not get offended if the mapmaker has reasons why he doesn't want to implement your suggestion.


It's not about the suggestion being denied its about the way in which it is denied.

Also natty, you seem rather abrasive recently to anyone who you are engaged in a discussion with. It only serves to deteriorate the value that can be gained from a conversation where people are looking for solutions instead of saying the other party is wrong which you have done about people saying the map is too big no less than 5 times that I have seen in various threads now.

While I'm sure you have no issues with the huge map, clearly it is annoying for more than one person.

I would suggest that maybe we approach lack about making it that regions don't need to have to be able to fit 3 digits worth of troops on them. Lets be honest, how often does that really happen? Beyond that when it does, is it really that big of a deal when it overlaps into another region? I personally don't think so but maybe if we change that new people would come and complain about that.

Another option is to make maps wider instead of taller. If kings court was the same amount of total pixels and just wider i would personally would be able to see it just fine. Then again maybe there are restrictions on that or maybe it would have made the design process too complicated. I'm not really sure what the specifications are on that matter either.


thenobodies80 wrote:I'm not trying to argue with you...really.
Just trying to say that if all the people that today is posting in the kabanellas map topic asking for a smaller map had checked the map thread when the KC2 map was in the production it would have been easier for Kabanellas to change the map accordingly the players suggestion than now,when he has basically finished his job, just because the map threads are checked by mapmakers only. And mapmakers care more about the art than the playing aspects.
As said it wasn't a comment against you, but more about the different perspective foundry goers and players have. ;)


Thank you for doing your best to be helpful in a rather helpless situation. Its nice to see someone trying to listen to concerns and come up with solutions that can benefit the site and the community as a whole.
User avatar
Captain ljex
 
Posts: 2943
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 12:12 am
Medals: 115
Conqueror Achievement (1) Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (4) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (4)
Terminator Achievement (3) Assassin Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (4) Freestyle Achievement (4) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (3)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (4) Teammate Achievement (3) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (22) General Achievement (5)
Clan Achievement (12) Tournament Contribution (18) General Contribution (3)

PreviousNext

Return to Foundry Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Login