
Moderator: Cartographers
hulmey wrote:im afraid that this map will never see the light of day. It would have to be larger than world 2.1!!! Now you know as well as anybody that map authors can not exceed normal guidlines let alone exceed the size of world 2.1.
On another note - As a reasonably good player of risk if i were to own alerica i would by no means also want to own Iraq!! First iwould conquer Canada then maybe slip in SA and then with these 2 huge bonus's conquer the world!!!
Also, would you count Saudi Arabia as a enemy of America. Who says what is what? I would say Saudi Arabia nd the USa are friends but religiously they are not.
Honestly you have no idea what you are getting yourself into!!!
volfan wrote:World 2.1 made it through. Didn't it exceed the guidelines? I think you should keep going on with this. I am 100% for it.
pepperonibread wrote:volfan wrote:World 2.1 made it through. Didn't it exceed the guidelines? I think you should keep going on with this. I am 100% for it.
Why do people keep bringing this up? If my CC history is accurate (so correct me if I'm wrong), World 2.0 slipped through the cracks when the mods were more lenient and (no offense to the mods) less concerned about quality; it should have never been quenched. If World 2.0 was proposed today, I'm pretty sure the size guidelines would kill it.
And about the World 3.0 idea. I lean towards the "classic" maps with less new features and XML tricks. However, I see I'm the minority here, so I guess it's worth going for. If you can get pass the guidelines, that is. (I guess I'm against you here, too; I say small maps should be maximum 600 px to accommodate everyone).
P.S.: The second paragraph is really more for DiM than anyone else.
DiM wrote:pepperonibread wrote:volfan wrote:World 2.1 made it through. Didn't it exceed the guidelines? I think you should keep going on with this. I am 100% for it.
Why do people keep bringing this up? If my CC history is accurate (so correct me if I'm wrong), World 2.0 slipped through the cracks when the mods were more lenient and (no offense to the mods) less concerned about quality; it should have never been quenched. If World 2.0 was proposed today, I'm pretty sure the size guidelines would kill it.
And about the World 3.0 idea. I lean towards the "classic" maps with less new features and XML tricks. However, I see I'm the minority here, so I guess it's worth going for. If you can get pass the guidelines, that is. (I guess I'm against you here, too; I say small maps should be maximum 600 px to accommodate everyone).
P.S.: The second paragraph is really more for DiM than anyone else.
world 2.0 indeed slipped when the foundry was more lenient but world 2.1 is quite recent. and no matter how it slipped if the other maps are getting revamped then why isn't world 2.1?
as for the paragraph dedicated to me all i can say is that i want to create a more realistic representation of the world. but if the people want a classic approach that can also be done with no problem. in fact it would probably be a whole lot easier to do a classic approach than to do it the way i want to.![]()
the size issue is indeed a problem. i guess there are only 3 solutions.
1. size regulations remain the same and the map is abandoned.
2. size regulations change and i make the map
3. i make a large high quality map that exceeds the guidlines and a small poor quality map that fits the guidelines (poor graphics but same gameplay)
hulmey wrote:ok then...take it off the site NOW if it slipped through.
pepperonibread wrote:hulmey wrote:ok then...take it off the site NOW if it slipped through.
Why would we take it off now? So many people play it, it can only help the site.
DiM wrote:pepperonibread wrote:hulmey wrote:ok then...take it off the site NOW if it slipped through.
Why would we take it off now? So many people play it, it can only help the site.
because in the map making rules it says any map maker is obigated to do any modifications to his map evfen after it is quenched if problems are found. and in this case the size is a problem. so either force zim to revamp the map and resize it or take it off the site.
Dmunster wrote:DiM wrote:pepperonibread wrote:hulmey wrote:ok then...take it off the site NOW if it slipped through.
Why would we take it off now? So many people play it, it can only help the site.
because in the map making rules it says any map maker is obigated to do any modifications to his map evfen after it is quenched if problems are found. and in this case the size is a problem. so either force zim to revamp the map and resize it or take it off the site.
Please dont get rid of 2.1. It's the best map on the site. This idea is defenitly making me hot too.
Vace Cooper wrote:have you started working on it at all? can you post a link? im exited to see somthing!
Spockers wrote:Like this was ever meant to be a real map.
Just a poor excuse to stir shit because Dim didn't get his way in previous maps.
Spockers wrote:Like this was ever meant to be a real map.
Just a poor excuse to stir shit because Dim didn't get his way in previous maps.
natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
Return to Melting Pot: Map Ideas
Users browsing this forum: No registered users