Map sizes

[Nola_Lifer]

I'd say, in about a month, all the dissent about large map size will go away. It is a change and a big of a different one. Once you adapt yourself and your PC you won't notice.

[ljex]

I'd say, in about a month, all the dissent about large map size will go away. It is a change and a big of a different one. Once you adapt yourself and your PC you won't notice.

Sure people will stop complaining eventually...but that doesn't mean they wont be silently annoyed

[Dukasaur]

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

I'm sorry if I'm a bit rushed, so I don't have time to answer all the point in this thread that deserve an answer. However, it will only take a minute to answer your straighforward question, nobodies.

Perfect map: Holy Roman Empire (map + attack bar both fit in one screen)

Acceptable Map: Chicago (attack bar doesn't fit on same screen as the map, but at least the entire map fits, so I can get a complete strategic overview. Still have to scroll down to attack, but I can live with that.)

Too large map: Antarctica (no matter how I centre the screen, some part of the map is always off the screen. And of course I can [CTRL]wheel to zoom out, but then I have to really squint to see the numbers.)

[natty dread]

Too large map: Antarctica

Ok first of all Antarctica isn't even supersize. It's within the regular size limits. The small map of Antarctica is 630x600 and you're saying that doesn't fit in your screen? Seriously?

This just goes to show people will complain no matter what size limits we set, no matter how small/large we make the maps there's always someone who whines "but it doesn't fit in my 1986 CGA display!"

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

Yeah, people like different things. I'm really annoyed by several maps, like Madness, Chinese Checkers, or Conquer Man, to name a few. But if there's people who like them I'm not going to tell them that they shouldn't get to play the kind of maps they like, just because I don't like them.

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?

With colour codes all the time.

Another option is to make maps wider instead of taller.

And people with non-widescreen monitors will complain.

[koontz1973]

As natty said, any size will annoy someone. I only use the small map as it fits my old display perfectly. So the current size of 630/600 is great for me. Antarctica included.

The only two issues with size are these....

Do small maps really need the large map size of 840/800? The small maps size would be ideal for the large map on most of the small maps we have.

Supersized maps that do not need it for game play and only for pretty graphics. Does a map with 40-50 territs need to be larger than the current size?

Apart from those two issues, the current size limits seem pretty well balanced.

[natty dread]

Do small maps really need the large map size of 840/800?

Yes they do. We don't only need 2 map sizes because some have smaller monitors - it goes the other way around too, some have larger resolutions so that really small maps are hard to play on.

[koontz1973]

Do small maps really need the large map size of 840/800?

Yes they do. We don't only need 2 map sizes because some have smaller monitors - it goes the other way around too, some have larger resolutions so that really small maps are hard to play on.

Why, my laptop has a far higher resolution than my desk PC and I still play on the small map only. Doodle Earth with its 18 territs looks stupid in the large map setting. There is just so much wasted space there. Same can also be said Luxembourg. Both of these maps could easily accommodate a smaller small map with the current small map being made the large. It is easily compatible with higher resolution screen and then easier to be played on with the modern tech like phones and tablets. Either that, or a third map should be made for the modern tech.

[natty dread]

Do small maps really need the large map size of 840/800?

Yes they do. We don't only need 2 map sizes because some have smaller monitors - it goes the other way around too, some have larger resolutions so that really small maps are hard to play on.

Why, my laptop has a far higher resolution than my desk PC and I still play on the small map only. Doodle Earth with its 18 territs looks stupid in the large map setting. There is just so much wasted space there. Same can also be said Luxembourg. Both of these maps could easily accommodate a smaller small map with the current small map being made the large. It is easily compatible with higher resolution screen and then easier to be played on with the modern tech like phones and tablets. Either that, or a third map should be made for the modern tech.

Ok you may have that experience but everyone else is not you.

[zimmah]

seperate the legend and the name-tags from the map and you'll save lots of space.

[koontz1973]

Ok you may have that experience but everyone else is not you.

And for that I am grateful. Imagine a world of only me. Utopia gets boring as well.

But the point is, like most people on this site, my experience counts. I have a large high res screen and a small low res one. When playing on the low res one, the small map takes up all of the screen and then some but I would not force map makers to make a smaller map just for me. And on the large one, the large maps look great but I still play the small map only. I am not asking for smaller small maps, but maps that while still look good in high res, can be played on even smaller screens. The two examples I gave are both maps that could easily accommodate a smaller small map.

A large map like Kings Court 2, Mega USA (if it is finished) make good use of the space they are given. Doodle does not.

[natty dread]

Ok, let's separate two concepts which are often cofused/conflated when talking about display devices: "Resolution" is used to refer to both the total amount of pixels on a screen, and the amount of pixels per area (pixels per inch/centimeter/etc). When I speak of high resolution monitors I mean the latter definition, which is also called "pixel density".

So on a low resolution monitor a certain map image could be 20x20 cm, while on a high resolution monitor the same image could be 10x10 cm, regardless of the actual size of the monitor, or how much space the map takes in relative terms. Taking in account that not everyone has a good eyesight, it's only sensible to offer a larger image for all maps.

[Gillipig]

Nobodies;
I think a map gets too big when the small size of a map is the size of a "normal" large size map. 840/800 px. That's when a lot of people who only play games using the small map thinks the map is too big. I've heard Andy always uses the small version when he plays games so he's probably as good of an advisor on this as you'll find. I use large size on all maps except Kings Court II and Africa II but I'm mostly in front of a very small widescreen so my screen is pretty weird. When I'm using my mac laptop though, all maps are too big !

I think the gap of knowledge between ordinary players and experienced map makers is part of why so many chose to not bother with the foundry. It's always hard to come in to a place where you are so far behind in terms of experience and knowledge. Especially if the map maker fails to respond politely to your opinions.
It gets a lot easier after some time in the foundry but many leave before they get any insight into how it works.

[natty dread]

I think a map gets too big when the small size of a map is the size of a "normal" large size map. 840/800 px.

Yeah then we could just as well not have supersize...

[swimmerdude99]

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 sir I have decided to try and check in more... 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, but I guess I can try and check in earlier as that is the issue I currently have now, si more visual. Is there anyway to create more subforums for maps at different steps? so we know which ones are SERIOUSLY moving forward?

[Gillipig]

I think a map gets too big when the small size of a map is the size of a "normal" large size map. 840/800 px.

Yeah then we could just as well not have supersize...

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. I suggest we let the current maps that are bigger than that be but set a hard upper limit for future maps! Maps don't get better just because they get bigger, and having tons of huge maps that a lot of players have a difficult time surveying isn't good for the site.
I don't know how far you guys have come with the World 3.0 map or how big the large/small version will be but it could always be counted as an exception to this rule. It's important that we're not being cluttered by these maps though. Some is okay but not too many.

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 sir I have decided to try and check in more... 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, but I guess I can try and check in earlier as that is the issue I currently have now, si more visual. Is there anyway to create more subforums for maps at different steps? so we know which ones are SERIOUSLY moving forward?

Hi bud ,try to get in early in the map making stage. That's when the map maker is most open minded and are most likely to listen to your suggestions. So go to the drafting room instead of the Final Forge. I find it very hard to come up with something meaningful to say in the Final Forge myself and that's because it's an almost finished product.