Small/large size differences

[thenobodies80]

Also, we already pretty much don't have any de facto size limits - there's the supersize limit but even that can be exceeded in some cases...

so can i make a 6000*6000px map with 1000 terits?

No. I think you have to wait many years before you will be able to play such map. (that tbh I wouldn't play anyway)
About the rest, I totally echo natty.
Have just large is a stupid idea, it makes happy 10 mapmakers and unhappy the large part of the community who use small maps.
It will never happen on a commercial site....it's like say..."Can't you buy a bigger monitor? Then f**k yourself!"
You can't do it on CC and for various reasons; probably you can do it if you are, let me say, the EA(*) or another big company (although they really know that the UI should be friendly in a game, in fact here we're not talking about static pages or a web site like wikipedia, where you can scroll without problems and with all the time of this world).

Even if a day monitors will be changed, resolution will be better....you will have always people that play with big monitors and people that will uses smaller ones. Said that, and specially now with supersizes, I don't see why draw a small version has become a problem...
Things change step by step...

[DiM]

its not about making some mapmakers happy or sad. it's about making each map just the right size without the use of strict measurements.

my slovakia map is less than half the surface of what i'm allowed to use. in theory i could go ahead and fill all that space with whatever i want and still be in the current guidelines. is that normal? certainly not, but current guidelines allow me to do it.

simply put all maps should have just one size and be as small as possible without becoming ugly or hard to read.
that means that if i can make slovakia at 600*300 then that's the perfect size for it, no need to go higher. on the other hand if i want to make a 1000 terit map i should be allowed to do it as long as i obey the same rule of not wasting space and keeping the size at a minimum.

this, plus a better interface like i suggested 5 years ago, where you're allowed to easily drag a map with your mouse or zoom in/out with your mouse wheel would make any map easy to create and easy to play on any environment whether it is your smartphone or your big ass wall size tv screen.

[Gillipig]

I agree with nobodies and natty here. All maps need a small version! To skip the small version would create more problems for users with small screens/"new mini technology " than it would make it easier for map makers.
I think in some cases there might not need to be a large version though. If the small version is clear and uncluttered maybe the large version is unnecessary!?

[natty dread]

I agree with nobodies and natty here. All maps need a small version! To skip the small version would create more problems for users with small screens/"new mini technology " than it would make it easier for map makers.
I think in some cases there might not need to be a large version though. If the small version is clear and uncluttered maybe the large version is unnecessary!?

Large version is needed too - small versions of some maps look really small and hard to read on monitors with high resolution, that's why it's good to have two different sizes

[tkr4lf]

I like having both sizes. It's a good happy medium. Most like to use the small map, some like the large map. What's wrong with that?

I know I used to use the small map exclusively. Then I realized that I could actually change the size of the map, and I started playing more complicated maps, and the large map has become all that I use. But, I have a pretty big monitor for a laptop (17.3 inch screen) so it doesn't bother me to use a huge map. I can understand the other side though. Not all laptops have large screens, people play from their phones, etc.

[Gillipig]

I agree with nobodies and natty here. All maps need a small version! To skip the small version would create more problems for users with small screens/"new mini technology " than it would make it easier for map makers.
I think in some cases there might not need to be a large version though. If the small version is clear and uncluttered maybe the large version is unnecessary!?

Large version is needed too - small versions of some maps look really small and hard to read on monitors with high resolution, that's why it's good to have two different sizes

I meant for some maps, not all! If a map doesn't look the least cluttered at the small size it might not need a bigger version. Just a thought .

[natty dread]

I agree with nobodies and natty here. All maps need a small version! To skip the small version would create more problems for users with small screens/"new mini technology " than it would make it easier for map makers.
I think in some cases there might not need to be a large version though. If the small version is clear and uncluttered maybe the large version is unnecessary!?

Large version is needed too - small versions of some maps look really small and hard to read on monitors with high resolution, that's why it's good to have two different sizes

I meant for some maps, not all! If a map doesn't look the least cluttered at the small size it might not need a bigger version. Just a thought .

Ok no, you're not getting the point. Monitors have different resolutions. A 1000x1000 image is not always the same size in absolute terms - on a low res monitor it can be 20x20 cm, on a high res monitor it can be 10x10 cm. Having two sizes ensures that the map is more likely to be able to be viewed in optimal size on different devices.

[thenobodies80]

my slovakia map is less than half the surface of what i'm allowed to use. in theory i could go ahead and fill all that space with whatever i want and still be in the current guidelines. is that normal? certainly not, but current guidelines allow me to do it.

Yeah, guidelines allow you to do it, but those are guidelines not strict rules. If your map has a lot of useless space someone will tell you to go with a smaller size....users and also CAs did this in past and do this today. I don't think it needs to be written, it's a sort of unwritten rule: "use the space you really need, but keep in mind you have some limits".
Good and experienced mapmakers, like you , easily understand what is the space they need. Novice mapmakers maybe need some advice, but it's not a so big issue.
Nowdays, we need just to be sure that maps fit the UI (that's the reason we have limits)...when we will have a new UI (you don't know how much I agree with you about the necessity of a better one) maybe we can discuss about modify/update these limits.

[AndyDufresne]

Lackattack recently gathered some stats about browser resolutions.

1. 1366x768 15.50%
2. 1280x800 13.82%
3. 1024x768 8.03%
4. 1440x900 7.64%
5. 1280x1024 7.25%
6. 1920x1080 7.13%
7. 1680x1050 5.92%
8. 1600x900 5.07%
9. 320x480 3.65%
10. 768x1024 2.65%

Small maps are definitely always appreciated and needed. In fact, I think some of the small maps we've had over the last year or so are pushing the limits of being too big to really be 'small.'!


--Andy

[ender516]

Interesting statistics, especially those (, 10) showing people playing in portrait mode (rotated monitors, smartphones, tablets?). I recently lost my rotatable monitor at work. I went from a large 4:3 screen to a shorter but wider 16:9 format, with probably about the same area overall, but the new one doesn't turn. The display adapter will still flip the screen around, but that is of little use.

[thenobodies80]

In fact, I think some of the small maps we've had over the last year or so are pushing the limits of being too big to really be 'small.'!

Without a comparison between two elements it's difficult to say what is big or small, everything is relative!


Anyway, it seems to me there's a red colored request for a different policy for supersize images....but listen to me, try to change the UI, that's the issue not big maps. For now what I can say....smaller maps? yes, Sir!

[thenobodies80]

considering that there's a sort of official request for smaller small version, expect a change in the graphics/size guidelines very soon. In few word we will change the minimum 9% difference in something else....in the meanwhile if someone has suggestions or want to share thoughts feel free to post here!

[natty dread]

in the meanwhile if someone has suggestions or want to share thoughts feel free to post here!

Well, you asked for it...

I think it's totally moronic for the admin to restrict the size of maps - people can choose what maps they want to play, if someone doesn't feel comfortable playing a map that is 1400 x 1000 then they have a choice of a ton of smaller maps to play on.

Also, I totally agree that the sidebar has to go, that's just poor UI design. But hey, let's concentrate on creating pay-to-play tournaments instead, I'm sure that's much more important for the site...

[Dukasaur]

i think we should get rid of small size and stick with just the large.

I'm on this ship, get a bigger monitor.

We're not all spoiled little rich kids with big-ass 22" monitors. When you move out of Mommy's basement you'll find out there are things to pay like rent and hydro and car insurance, and this will militate against your ability to buy high-tech supertoys.

[DiM]

i think we should get rid of small size and stick with just the large.

I'm on this ship, get a bigger monitor.

We're not all spoiled little rich kids with big-ass 22" monitors. When you move out of Mommy's basement you'll find out there are things to pay like rent and hydro and car insurance, and this will militate against your ability to buy high-tech supertoys.

i play on a 1366*768, 15.6" laptop display.

as for the rest of your message, i hope it was a poor attempt at humour.

[natty dread]

i think we should get rid of small size and stick with just the large.

I'm on this ship, get a bigger monitor.

We're not all spoiled little rich kids with big-ass 22" monitors. When you move out of Mommy's basement you'll find out there are things to pay like rent and hydro and car insurance, and this will militate against your ability to buy high-tech supertoys.

Ok, at first glance it seems like you're just acting like an asshole, but I think there's more to it here... So, let's analyze and unpack this post for a bit.

First, it seems to me you're projecting your unconscious anger/jealousy on the fact that someone else has a larger monitor than you. Could it be that you feel somehow "de-masculized" by "losing" in the battle of monitor size? Could it be that the gender norms in our culture which presupposes that men can only be valued by their success, that is making you feel inadequate if you have smaller equipment than others, and this makes you lash out?

Secondly, your use of the whole "mommy's basement" cliche. You know, this also seems to tie in closely with the whole cultural "male success myth" - you can't out-show TBK in monitor size, so your only option is to resort to shaming tactics and try to downvalue the particular category you lose in. Kind of like, your neighbor buys a bigger car than you, and because you can't out-show him by buying an even bigger one, you lash out by claiming that he must be compensating for his small penis. That's how it goes, right?

Another, slightly uglier aspect of this is is the way you use shaming language to try to silence those who disagree with your opinion. Firstly, the probably ugliest aspect of this is virgin-shaming - we all know "living in mom's basement" is simply a shorthand or euphemism for "virgin", which means that you're trying to humiliate TBK by first implying that he's a virgin, and then mocking him for it. As men, we are expected by our culture to treat having sex as just another achievement - you are valued by how many women you can "conquer". So what if TBK was a virgin, so what if he lived in his mom's basement (I'm pretty sure he isn't and doesn't but let's assume for the sake of argument) - does that make his opinions any less valid? No.

The ironic thing is, that 22" widescreen monitors aren't even all that expensive these days - certainly not something that requires huge income, or living in a "mom's basement" to afford. I bought mine for 70€. But I think you know it, and I don't think that was the actual point in your post - rather, you're just lashing out because you obviously have some mental baggage that you should unpack. You know, it'd probably be good to do some honest self-reflection at this point.

[isaiah40]

i play on a 1366*768, 15.6" laptop display.

Must be a Toshiba. These are my settings as well.

[DiM]

i play on a 1366*768, 15.6" laptop display.

Must be a Toshiba. These are my settings as well.

nope, it's this one.

[Dukasaur]

I want to apologise to the Bison King for my nasty outburst. Your relatively innocuous comment didn't deserve such a rude response.

Natty's post is 90% wrong, but it does have 10% truth at the end. This all has to do more to do with my personal baggage than with anything relevant to the thread. I just have such hatred for the mindless materialism of our corrupt, decadent society, people complicating their life with materialistic claptrap instead of seeking existential moments and enlightenment, people standing in line like retarded sheep to buy the latest idiotic gizmo that the marketing nabobs tell them to buy. Myself, I've never bought a new computer component until the previous one died. If my Apple IIe was still alive I'd still be using it. Every "upgrade" I've ever suffered was involuntary, because some component died and replacements were no longer made and/or supported by the manufacturer. For that matter, I've never bought a car until the previous one was a rusted-out hulk on its way to the scrapyard. It's not so much that I couldn't. Although my income is below average, I'm still comfortably above the poverty line. It just offends my sense of right and wrong to feed the system and perpetuate the web of lies and illusions that society is built on. But anyway, none of this is anyone's problem but my own. I'm sorry that I let all this bleed through in a moment of irritation about something as innocent as map sizes.

To all the mapmakers, I apologies for so often being in a bad mood when I visit here. You guys do great work bringing us all kinds of wonderful concepts, and you really deserve a lot more thanks and a lot less criticism. Thanks and kudos to all of you.

[cairnswk]

Lackattack recently gathered some stats about browser resolutions.

1. 1366x768 15.50%
2. 1280x800 13.82%
3. 1024x768 8.03%
4. 1440x900 7.64%
5. 1280x1024 7.25%
6. 1920x1080 7.13%
7. 1680x1050 5.92%
8. 1600x900 5.07%
9. 320x480 3.65%
10. 768x1024 2.65%

Small maps are definitely always appreciated and needed. In fact, I think some of the small maps we've had over the last year or so are pushing the limits of being too big to really be 'small.'!


--Andy

Mmmm. i'm just wondering what happened to the other 23.44% of the stats?
Don't they count?

[thenobodies80]

Yeah I thought the same thing...maybe those are so small percentages and admins decided to list only the top 10
I'm also wondering what criteria/system was used to gather those numbers.

[isaiah40]

Yeah I thought the same thing...maybe those are so small percentages and admins decided to list only the top 10
I'm also wondering what criteria/system was used to gather those numbers.

Lack probably got them from Google Analytics, as it will tell you resolution, OS, browser etc..