New Size Rule

[WidowMakers]

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

Do you mean the "88" size? I don't think it is actually for readability of teh "88" but for better clarity of borders and names of territories. Plus increase detail of the gameplay area.

WM

[oaktown]

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

Do you mean the "88" size?

yes... but I mean the numbers dropped onto the map by the server during game play.

[tim02]

[quote="DiMthink 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.

[/quote]

Ya I remember he was earning like 75 points a win with his doubles partner (that is why he did it)

it was all in the cheating and abuse reports

[Aerial Attack]

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."

I like this (as I posted earlier), but I think that 100 is too arbitrary a size difference. If you amend the statement to say that the dimensions (both width AND height) for a Large map are at least 10% larger than the small map and meet the minimums below (means min of 60 px wider).


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

[yeti_c]

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

Do you mean the "88" size?

yes... but I mean the numbers dropped onto the map by the server during game play.

I mentioned this somewhere else too!?

The map size increases but the army numbers don't...

However if they did now - then ALL old maps will need to be changed... (as well as BOB!)

C.

[WidowMakers]

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

Do you mean the "88" size?

yes... but I mean the numbers dropped onto the map by the server during game play.

I mentioned this somewhere else too!?

The map size increases but the army numbers don't...

However if they did now - then ALL old maps will need to be changed... (as well as BOB!)

C.

Changing the size of the army numbers is bad.

As far as map size guidelines go, I do think there should be a more defined list of requirements. But these need to be thought out and would they then apply to all maps in FF and the main foundry. Because if they do that could cause a problem.

I think that if we are to make fair rules, we should go back and look at all of the maps. There may be exceptions to the rule but as far as the MIN/MAX for each size, it should be looked at more closely before making a rule.

I.E.
<title>Classic</title>
<smallwidth>600</smallwidth>
<smallheight>325</smallheight>
<largewidth>800</largewidth>
<largeheight>433</largeheight>

<title>British Isles</title>
<smallwidth>600</smallwidth>
<smallheight>400</smallheight>
<largewidth>800</largewidth>
<largeheight>550</largeheight>

<title>Crossword</title>
<smallwidth>466</smallwidth>
<smallheight>350</smallheight>
<largewidth>800</largewidth>
<largeheight>600</largeheight>

These are a few examples of small maps that are below the recommended sizes that Aerial Attack suggested. I just think further discussion and research is needed.

WM

P.S. If i have time today I will make a spreadsheet and graph of the different maps both small and large. It will be easier to see the range of sizes and then maybe we can better understand what to do.

[Coleman]

I like that AA, except that more previous maps break that then the 100px thing.

EDIT: Wow I was fast posted by a post over 10x larger than mine.

[WidowMakers]

I like that AA, except that more previous maps break that then the 100px thing.

EDIT: Wow I was fast posted by a post over 10x larger than mine.

HAHA. And I edited it three times.

[rebelman]

As someone who has recently been critical of one of WM's maps in this instance I am going to defend him - his arguments to have the same maps both the small size seem to me to make complete sense.

He will still be making a large and a small map - they will just happen to have the same dimensions - which makes sense to anyone who has seen the pacmanesqe map he is working on.

Looking at this from a players perspective I can't see any problem as most players either use small or large and rarely change between them so they will be none the wiser.

I have at the times been surprised at how large a small map is (Pugent Sound comes to mind) or how small a large map is (ww2 eastern front) but at all times it seems the map makers have chosen a suitable size for the map - WM should be left do the same changing the rules late in the game like this strikes me as bad law making.

[Coleman]

I know this seems stupid, but how many 'bug' reports are we going to get when people notice both maps are the same? There are new players all the time too. There has to be some size difference between them, unfortunately.

There doesn't seem to be a just way to decide how much though.

[oaktown]

more thought is definitely needed, because right now things don't make sense. There are maximum suggested sizes which are in conflict with other rules.

This is from To to Make a Map, regarding height:

it is recommended that you do not exceed 350 px on small maps and 600 px on large maps so that users will not need to scroll down to attack.

Wid met the site's max recommended height, but now he is being told to resize it to meet a new rule. My Duck & Cover map is 50 pixels OVER the recommended height, and now I will have to make it at least 25 pixels larger to meet the new requirements. Huh? Which guideline do you want me the follow? Because I was following the one that has been around for the past eleven months.

And I agree that changing the numbers for all maps is a bad idea... but if the idea is to make maps more readable, why not make the numbers more readable as well? Perhaps mutliple numbering options? Smaller numbers for maps that are trying to squeeze in more terits, and larger numbers for low terit count maps? One line of xml...

[Coleman]

How about 9%?

Large maps must be at least 9% larger than their small map, although 33% is recommended.

Now with calculator: http://members.cox.net/gyrigo/CC/SizeCalculator.xls

[Aerial Attack]

As far as map size guidelines go, I do think there should be a more defined list of requirements. But these need to be thought out and would they then apply to all maps in FF and the main foundry. Because if they do that could cause a problem.

I think that if we are to make fair rules, we should go back and look at all of the maps. There may be exceptions to the rule but as far as the MIN/MAX for each size, it should be looked at more closely before making a rule.

I.E.
<title>Classic</title>
<smallwidth>600</smallwidth>
<smallheight>325</smallheight>
<largewidth>800</largewidth>
<largeheight>433</largeheight>

<title>British Isles</title>
<smallwidth>600</smallwidth>
<smallheight>400</smallheight>
<largewidth>800</largewidth>
<largeheight>550</largeheight>

<title>Crossword</title>
<smallwidth>466</smallwidth>
<smallheight>350</smallheight>
<largewidth>800</largewidth>
<largeheight>600</largeheight>

These are a few examples of small maps that are below the recommended sizes that Aerial Attack suggested. I just think further discussion and research is needed.

WM

P.S. If i have time today I will make a spreadsheet and graph of the different maps both small and large. It will be easier to see the range of sizes and then maybe we can better understand what to do.

I think such a spreadsheet would be VERY helpful.

Apparently, we have our Height Minimums. I have a feeling that if we change Classic - there would be too much of an uproar (seeing as how it's the most played map). I didn't realize that this was decently readable at that size.

Based on the examples above, I guess height isn't as bad/important as width (well - it actually is, but maybe not as noticeable).

With that in mind, I'd like to amend my percentages to Min Width = 75% of Max Width and Min Height = 60% of Max Width (Classic would still be off by 30-50 pixels, but that could be our exception).

Large maps must be at least 9% larger than their small map, although 33% is recommended.

I like Coleman's statement.

Let me amend mine to: Large map dimensions must be at least 9% larger than than their small map counterparts, but no more than 33.34 % (the recommended differential).

[DiM]

How about 9%?

Large maps must be at least 9% larger than their small map, although 33% is recommended.

Now with calculator: http://members.cox.net/gyrigo/CC/SizeCalculator.xls

make it 10% and 33.33% and you got yourself a deal

because you'll get:

Code: Select all

   Small   Required Large   Recommended Large
Width   630   693   840
Height   600   660   800


[Coleman]

Yeah, but then I'd also get:

BeNeLux

Code: Select all

       Small Required Large Recomended Large
Width  504   554            670
Height 550   605            732

Which it doesn't have.

[WL_southerner]

ummm very intresting, i have ideas but i thinking about them at the moment
but what aa and wm is saying makes sence
now where my andy bribe ( bunch of bananas )

[DiM]

Yeah, but then I'd also get:

BeNeLux

Code: Select all

       Small Required Large Recomended Large
Width  504   554            670
Height 550   605            732

Which it doesn't have.

benelyx is already quenched so it doesn't matter. i thought we were talking about applying the rules to maps in production and to future maps. the ones that are already quenched or in live play are done and they should remain the same.

[DiM]

ummm very intresting, i have ideas but i thinking about them at the moment
but what aa and wm is saying makes sence
now where my andy bribe ( bunch of bananas )

if you have ideas please share them. there no point to hold them for yourself.

[WidowMakers]

Yeah, but then I'd also get:

BeNeLux

Code: Select all

       Small Required Large Recomended Large
Width  504   554            670
Height 550   605            732

Which it doesn't have.

benelyx is already quenched so it doesn't matter. i thought we were talking about applying the rules to maps in production and to future maps. the ones that are already quenched or in live play are done and they should remain the same.

I agree with this idea except I was told I had to remake my other maps due to the size issue.

Why was I did I need to redo those for that rule change and these maps are exempt from this one?

[Coleman]

This may be my lack of knowledge on the issue, but didn't you volunteer to do that? I recall us saying you didn't have to, even though it might be better if you did. I never saw an express order.

[WidowMakers]

This may be my lack of knowledge on the issue, but didn't you volunteer to do that? I recall us saying you didn't have to, even though it might be better if you did. I never saw an express order.

I was told that it would be a good idea to get them done so others would not be able to complain.
I was not told "DO IT OR YOUR BANNED!"
But it was not a suggestion either. I will see if I can find the text.

WM

[Coleman]

Well, while we're discussing map sizes. Would you be willing to remove 10 px from Europe for us?

[WidowMakers]

Well, while we're discussing map sizes. Would you be willing to remove 10 px from Europe for us?

Why would we not grandfather in Europe if we are to grandfather in these other 5 maps for not being 100 pixels bigger?

[Coleman]

We're going to change the rule, you won that. But we still need a way to require that large maps be noticeably larger than their small maps. And if people need specifics we can come back with the 9-33%.

Andy told me to go ahead and change and color it. I should probably do that.

[WidowMakers]

Deleted to PM