New Size Rule

[Coleman]

WidowMakers and I had a chat.

The basic question was why does he have to have a large version when there is a completely readable and playable and (actually better looking) small map?

I'm not really sure. I asked if he could have both maps be the same and was told no. There has to be a large version and a small version like every other map.

I came back with the rules don't say that, which lead to the pursuit of one that would. WidowMakers feels this was to stop him from doing it. Which is true, the same discussion would have come up if anyone wanted to avoid a large map that wasn't bigger than their small map though.

We had never encountered it before, it is new.

So I sought out the fairest way I could find to make a new rule that fit with all the maps already provided. It turns out this is false.

BeNeLux
smallwidth 504
smallheight 550
largewidth 550
largeheight 600

46 px wider is all. There are four other maps that have similar results.

Now, redoing 5 maps to fit this newer rule probably is not rational. I would not consider it a valid option if I was asked candidly.

The choices seem to be, remove the rule, or lower it to 46.

I have no idea what forcing someone to make a map 46px larger in dimension would solve. Especially in the case of Conquer Man.

However, I know that Andy (most likely all of the Admins) would not be satisfied with a map that does not have a larger version for higher resolution users who want to see a larger area and less bunched togetherness.

As of right now, I do not know what to do, but 100 px was probably hasty, and had it been discussed more openly, the 5 maps that don't follow it would have been noticed before we added it.

So I am making this discussion open. Secrecy and elitism has done little for this place, there is no reason to make this discussion secret in my mind.

Advise.

[DiM]

if you make a new rule then it seems absurd to alter past maps to fit it.
i agree with the 100px rule and to be honest i would even up it to 200px. to really see the difference between latge and small.

what's done is done and so be i but all future maps (including those that are already in production should have this 100 px rule. (or even 200px)

[edbeard]

I had asked the same thing as Widowmakers while doing South America (updated version coming later today). My small map was only going to be 50px or so smaller. So, I didn't see why I had to do both.

The new rule for me just means that I'm going to have an even smaller small map. Which is fine. I don't see why we need to go back and change old maps.

The old maps didn't have these rules, so they do not need to abide by them. (=cough= world 2.1 =cough= )

The new maps DO need to follow these rules since THESE ARE THE NEW RULES. seems simple to me.

[WidowMakers]

I was told to redo all of my maps that were larger than 840x800 and 630 x600. That is why i am concerned.

Why should these map be any different?

[MPL]

what are the other 4 maps???

[edbeard]

you had quenched maps larger than those specs?

didn't know that. I thought only final forge and foundry maps were changed. And, world 2.1 was being worked on because of the MAX limits. I didn't realize any quenched maps ever exceeded those limits.

[WidowMakers]

you had quenched maps larger than those specs?

didn't know that. I thought only final forge and foundry maps were changed. And, world 2.1 was being worked on because of the MAX limits. I didn't realize any quenched maps ever exceeded those limits.

Actually there were 9 and 6 of them were mine. I was told to redo them. I did. That is why I feel these other maps should be redone to the new rule or the new rule should be eliminated.

What harm is it anyway? The small map is what Lack wants for the lower resolutions. I am providing that. Why do we need a larger map?

Yes DiM in most cases I would be happy to do a larger map. Believe me, I am not trying to get out of doing work. I have made or revamped 8 maps so I think I have a good idea as to what goes into map making. In most cases, Larger maps provide better looking maps. However, in my particular case, Conquer-Man does not scale well unless it is in 100% increments. Because I am trying to recreate the 1980's arcade feel the map is pixelated and 1 pixel wide letters on a 600 px wide map do not look good when the map is scaled up to 700px.

WM

[WidowMakers]

what are the other 4 maps???

Here are all 5

Chinese Checkers WIDTH
smallwidth 600
smallheight 405
largewidth 740
largeheight 500

WWII Eastern Front BOTH
smallwidth 629
smallheight 459
largewidth 692
largeheight 505

BeNeLux BOTH
smallwidth 504
smallheight 550
largewidth 550
largeheight 600

North America BOTH
smallwidth 555
smallheight 507
largewidth 653
largeheight 597

Philippines WIDTH (almost both)
smallwidth 480
smallheight 620
largewidth 560
largeheight 722

[MPL]

I do not care at all about right now (thanksWM anyways) but I do loke nice and big maps

[WidowMakers]

I do not care at all about right now (thanksWM anyways) but I do loke nice and big maps

But do you like nice big maps that look good? Because if you do them look good. If I make a large version of Conquer-Man, It will just be filled with more black space and no more detail. Sure there will be more pixels. Maybe bigger pellets. But he map will look bad because it is designed after a video game style from the 1980's. It is not supposed to be big. It is supposed to be small and have antiquated graphics.

WM

[MPL]

Thats not what I meant I meant like world 2.1


It's my favorite map

[unriggable]

Why dont we just leave all maps that broke the rule alone, and make it a rule for all incoming ones?

[AndyDufresne]

There must be a notable difference (I.E. more than just a few pixels) between small and large maps. The large maps are there so things are clearer, easier to read, etc. Some people like to play on the larger map because it allows for these things.

If both maps were made the same, it kind of defeats the purpose of us requiring everyone to have a large version and a small version.

============

I'd be fine with leaving the maps up that the difference is less, but last time we tried to go about this, there was talk about favoritism, different standards for different people.

So if we can all agree that the above isn't the case for leaving them untouched, and requiring all new, I'd be fine with that.

I just don't want to deal with the backlash of equal rights for all.


--Andy

[WidowMakers]

There must be a notable difference (I.E. more than just a few pixels) between small and large maps. The large maps are there so things are clearer, easier to read, etc. Some people like to play on the larger map because it allows for these things.

If both maps were made the same, it kind of defeats the purpose of us requiring everyone to have a large version and a small version.

============

I'd be fine with leaving the maps up that the difference is less, but last time we tried to go about this, there was talk about favoritism, different standards for different people.

So if we can all agree that the above isn't the case for leaving them untouched, and requiring all new, I'd be fine with that.

I just don't want to deal with the backlash of equal rights for all.


--Andy

1) I agree that normally this is true. When dealing with upscaling every other map, the program with anti-alias the pixels to get a smooth look. Conquer-Man does not allow this due to its graphical style. There is no increase in quality with a larger Conquer-Man map.

2)If we are going to grandfather these maps for this rule, why was I required to redo my maps for the size rule? I would hate to think I spent all that time for nothing. And why this rule now. I am the first to not want to make a large map. I have given a clear reason and I did not break any of the rules that were set forth when I started. If you want to impose this rule then I should be grandfathered into the group with the other maps since I was developing this before the rule was made.

WM

[Aerial Attack]

Let me preface my post with the fact that I am NOT a mapmaker - I don't have the skills.

It would seem that we have two issues - 1) what should the new rule be and 2) which maps should be grandfathered in.


ONE:

I think that small maps have maximums for a reason. I believe that large maps should have minimums for the inverse of that reason.

If you have an 800 x 600 screen resolution (does anyone still use this?), then you definitely want to see a small map fit within that screen. It would help to not have to scroll to see the left-navigation menu or the information written to the right of the map. Heck, that might even apply for 1024 x 768

In contrast, for someone using 1280 x 1024 or higher resolution - a small map (especially one that doesn't max out the small space) can be fairly difficult to read.

Therefore, I propose that a small map be no smaller than 500 px wide and a large map no smaller than 630 px wide. Notice the 630 wide - this is a just about large enough to still be decently legible at higher resolutions. So, a map that gets an exception for it's small width might also get an exception for the differential rule - although the mapmaker would probably be wise not to use/ask for both.

As far as height goes - 350 px (the recommendation for small) just seems to a bit off; 400 would be better. I think the large height should be at least 550 px

EDIT: I added in the summary below - voiding the proposed numbers above

Summary - There should be minimum AND maximum sizes for each map size as follows:

Small Map: Min Width = 480 (20% less than Max Width); Max Width = 600 (630 exception); Min Height = 420 (70% of Max Height); Max Height = 600
Large Map: Min Width = 640 (20% less than Max Width); Max Width = 800 (840 exception); Min Height = 560 (70% of Max Height); Max Height = 800
Large/Small Map Differential: Large Map Width 10% Greater than Small Map Width; Large Map Height 10% Greater than Small Map Width


TWO:

Even without knowing that WidowMakers had to redo several maps to fit in with the rules - I would think that these other maps should also be redone (that includes World 2.1). Which means - I don't think anyone deserves to be grandfathered in. The Foundry wants a consistent quality in terms of graphics and game play on every map. Well, that includes the viewing experience. People who have maps set to Large should consistently get maps that fill a decent portion of the screen and people who have maps set to Small should consistently get maps that don't force them to scroll up and down and/or left and right.

If the original mapmaker does not want their map altered (or is not around), then lack needs to update the way he does "licensing" of maps. The new licensing should include a stipulation that maps meet standards set in the Foundry and if something occurs that changes those standards, that the mapmaker has the right of first refusal. But, it should also state that any map on the site that does NOT meet standards can/will be updated to meet those standards (even if changes not approved). Unapproved changes need to be noted ON the map fix.


EDIT: Apparently no one realized my suggestion here was minimum size guidelines (this got glossed over until DiM/oaktown made the same suggestion). I probably should have made my points bold - which I've now added.

[oaktown]

I just have to say that the 100 pix difference rule is absolutely stupid. From the discussion there seems to be no service issue/programming need behind making the two maps a certain difference in size, it is just for the sake of readability and playability.

Not all maps are created equal. World 2.1 needs to be big, so it will max out the allowed dimensions. Doodle Earth doesn't. I'm working on a 24 territory map that doesn't need to be 800x800 pixels in size... in fact I was very proud of the fact that the large map works so well at 650x650. Easy to read, no scrolling. You'll actually be able to see the attack menus while you have the entire map on your screen. But since the small map doesn't work at 550x550, I guess I have to go back and make the big one bigger than it needs to be. Dumb.

As for reworking older maps, please. This wasn't a rule until 24 hours ago, so I'd rather not rework a map I finished eight months ago just to add five pixels to the edges.

Widowmakers: I have a suggestion for you that I'll post in your map thread.

[DiM]

i somehow feel that all my complaining about favoritism regarding past quenched maps that "slipped through the foundry" with larger than max sizes, was the thing that lead to some of the recent modifications like great lakes or kotm, etc. this is stupid.

when i complained i said i want to make a bigger map and that if other maps where allowed to slip then i should too. then i was told there's no way i'm gonna be allowed and that the old ones will be resized. i have publicly stated that's a stupid measure and i even discussed this with cairns via pm and shared my opinion. if it's done then it's done and that's it. resizing those maps is the wrong way of trying to fix a mistake in the past.

anyway back to the topic at hand. i agree that large maps should indeed be larger than the small.

if i make a perfectly playable small map that's 600*600 then i can simply let the large map be the same 600*600. they will both be perfectly visible. but the point of the large map is not just to be visible and playable but also to be LARGE and fill quite a bit of my screen. if i have a 1280*1024 resolution on my display then a 600*600 px map will feel tiny. i want it big i want it to fill my screen. so if small is 600*600 then large should be 800*800

[WidowMakers]

i somehow feel that all my complaining about favoritism regarding past quenched maps that "slipped through the foundry" with larger than max sizes, was the thing that lead to some of the recent modifications like great lakes or kotm, etc. this is stupid.

when i complained i said i want to make a bigger map and that if other maps where allowed to slip then i should too. then i was told there's no way i'm gonna be allowed and that the old ones will be resized. i have publicly stated that's a stupid measure and i even discussed this with cairns via pm and shared my opinion. if it's done then it's done and that's it. resizing those maps is the wrong way of trying to fix a mistake in the past.

anyway back to the topic at hand. i agree that large maps should indeed be larger than the small.

if i make a perfectly playable small map that's 600*600 then i can simply let the large map be the same 600*600. they will both be perfectly visible. but the point of the large map is not just to be visible and playable but also to be LARGE and fill quite a bit of my screen. if i have a 1280*1024 resolution on my display then a 600*600 px map will feel tiny. i want it big i want it to fill my screen. so if small is 600*600 then large should be 800*800

But that was not a rule until I started making a map that was going to have same sizes graphics. I have stated my reasons already. My map will not look better when made larger. That is the nature of this style of graphics.

Think of it this way DiM. Suppose you figure out how to do something within the current rules and are all excited. You work on the map and post your ideas. Weeks later the foundry finds out that they don't want you to proceed that way. There is then another rule made up over night and you are now expected to follow it. How would that make you feel?

WM

[DiM]

But that was not a rule until I started making a map that was going to have same sizes graphics. I have stated my reasons already. My map will not look better when made larger. That is the nature of this style of graphics.

Think of it this way DiM. Suppose you figure out how to do something within the current rules and are all excited. You work on the map and post your ideas. Weeks later the foundry finds out that they don't want you to proceed that way. There is then another rule made up over night and you are now expected to follow it. How would that make you feel?

WM

yep i understand what you say. frankly i haven't visited the pacman map in a while because i'm not attracted by it.
but from what i understand you want small and large to be of the same size. are you sure you can't make the map bigger? and still keep the pixely aspect but not make it so eye sore?

from what you said i understand that by resizing the map you'll get huge pixels that will ruin the aspect.

well here's an alternative.
look in the image below:

1. here is the small map. you have a 4 px shape
2. if you double the size of the map then it the pixels will be very big and disturb the view. so instead of doing this do option 3.
3. modify the pixels aspect ratio to be 1.2 times bigger and add more pixels. you'll get the same result but with smaller pixels. the pixelly appearance is kept but it is made easer on the eyes than simple increase of pixel size.

obviously when i say pixel i mean i don't mean an actual pixel, i mean the group of normal pixels that forms a "pixel". for example the "pixel" in image 1 has 100 normal px.

i know it's a bit confusing but i can't explain it better

however this method might require quite a lot of work depending on how you made the map. did you do the images by hand did you use a premade image? if you did them by hand did you draw "pixel" by pixel"?

[WidowMakers]

I see what you are saying DiM and I appreciate the advice. The issue is: What to do with all of the 1 pixel lines and all of the text? Not everything on the map scales well. But enough of the actual map.

I am trying to discuss the issue of adding a rule for the purpose of changing the idea a map maker had. And that rule has be violated in the past. If I had made Conquer-Man 6 weeks ago qwert's map would have needed to be changed. That does not make sense. So I feel I should not be penalized because I made the issue know.

Why should a map maker be subject to a rule that was made AFTER they started their map?

That is my question.

[DiM]

I see what you are saying DiM and I appreciate the advice. The issue is: What to do with all of the 1 pixel lines and all of the text? Not everything on the map scales well. But enough of the actual map.

I am trying to discuss the issue of adding a rule for the purpose of changing the idea a map maker had. And that rule has be violated in the past. If I had made Conquer-Man 6 weeks ago qwert's map would have needed to be changed. That does not make sense. So I feel I should not be penalized because I made the issue know.

Why should a map maker be subject to a rule that was made AFTER they started their map?

That is my question.

think about it this way.

a long time ago a guy started losing all his games to get to score 0 and then get an infinity of points from a single win. lackattack realized the problem and changed the rules before he could do it by making 100 points the max you can win. was it fair towards that player? surely not since he was playing by the rules. was it good in the general scheme of things? surely it was.

i understand that it might look bad and that it would mean more work for you but you just uncovered a flaw in the rules and thus the rules need changing. what's done is done and the quenched maps should be the same but since your map is still in production it means it still can be modified.

imagine it like this. i make a 150*150 px map. i actually have a map in production that would fit in that. is it good? it fits the current guidelines so i make both small and large at 150*150 px. would you play a large map that's 150*150 when your screen has a 1600*1200 resolution? i wouldn't.

[oaktown]

rather than setting a completely arbitrary size difference which does not allow for the needs of a specific project nor does it guarantee readability of a new map, perhaps we should come up with minimum map sizes. Because as is it now I could make a large map 300x300 and as long as my small map is 200x200 I'm within the rules. Lame.

If the max width for a small map is set 600, then the minimum width for a large map should be set at 601. Because this is what you want really - large maps that are large. Let's determine what "large" is and mandate it.

But don't go back and mess with what is done.

[DiM]

rather than setting a completely arbitrary size difference which does not allow for the needs of a specific project nor does it guarantee readability of a new map, perhaps we should come up with minimum map sizes. Because as is it now I could make a large map 300x300 and as long as my small map is 200x200 I'm within the rules. Lame.

fastposted and i even went lower. to 150 px

If the max width for a small map is set 600, then the minimum width for a large map should be set at 601. Because this is what you want really - large maps that are large. Let's determine what "large" is and mandate it.

hmmm. actually if you make the large at 601 and small at 600 it's kinda crappy since they are basically the same. i say like this:
"if the max width for a small map is set 600, then the minimum width for a large map should be set at 601 as long as it is 100px larger than the width of a small map."

But don't go back and mess with what is done.

true.

[WidowMakers]

Here are 2 new maps. Each around 50 px different. Was there any issue with them? No. Why not? Because no one realized it. I really doubt anyone would have said "Make the Large BIGGER" if the 50 px was pointed out.

Those large maps could almost be small according to the new rules.

WWII Eastern Front BOTH
smallwidth 629
smallheight 459
largewidth 692
largeheight 505

BeNeLux BOTH
smallwidth 504
smallheight 550
largewidth 550
largeheight 600

[oaktown]

if the large map is required to be larger for readability, shouldn't the size of the army counts increase as well?

hmmm. actually if you make the large at 601 and small at 600 it's kinda crappy since they are basically the same.

Better than following the rules and having a 300x300 large map and a 200x200 small map.