Conquer Club

Really big maps: Would you play them?

Talk about all things related to Conquer Club

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the community guidelines before posting.

Would you play a map that was bigger than your screen?

 
Total votes : 0

Re: Really big maps: Would you play them?

Postby yeti_c on Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:02 am

oaktown wrote:yeti made the point that vertical scrolling is easier than horizontal scrolling, and I tend to agree. I would personally be in favor of keeping the max width at about what it is right now (840 pixels I believe) but allowing the height to be at the discretion of the mapmaker. Thus good map ideas like the Trojan War map and the Skyscraper could happen.


Reading between the lines here - that means Trojan & Skyscaper = Yes -> WWIIEurope = No.

oaktown wrote:And as for yeti's question about scrolling in an inner window or scrolling the screen, I'd say the only way this would work is if we had an inner window. This would allow you to scroll to any part of the map and still have access to the attack and fortify buttons. If we were just scrolling the screen, you could only see the bottom of the map when you were attacking, which would mean scrolling up after every attack to see where the army counts stood. Bleh.


I would like to see the option of both on this (similar to your the large|small links - with a default in your profile)... Personally I would prefer a static scroll that isn't windowed... but that is mainly cos I always use the HUD feature of BOB - which means my Attack & Fortify are *always* on screen thus negating the need for it to be windowed - this also means that those with super huge monitors - would need to scroll less -> Writing code to expand contract stuff based on current res - although possible - can be an arse!

Ditocoaf wrote:
Ditocoaf wrote:You already discuss most aspects of a map qualitatively. Why not size? You can tell someone, "the map isn't worth the large size, so it won't be enjoyable". Other maps will be worth it. Maps like CC Tower (I think it's called that) would even be acceptable, if they make it through the criticism.

I'm sure most people will realize that excessive size can detract from a map if not done well. They want people to actually play their maps, after all.

You don't have a Territory limit, but maps with gobs of territs with no purpose will be rejected. You don't have a Color Saturation limit, but you can still tell when a map is ugly.

QFE


Did you just Quote your own post? I'm pretty sure that is frowned upon?!

C.
Image
Highest score : 2297
User avatar
Lieutenant yeti_c
 
Posts: 9624
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:02 am

Re: Really big maps: Would you play them?

Postby nagerous on Tue Jul 08, 2008 6:59 am

I'd probably play them a couple of times each, but too big a map can in my opinion often lead to stagnant game play and potential stalemate.
Image
User avatar
Captain nagerous
 
Posts: 7513
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:39 am

Re: Really big maps: Would you play them?

Postby alster on Tue Jul 08, 2008 7:37 am

TaCktiX wrote:So simply, if a really big map was released, would you play it, and why?


Yes. Because the size matters. :D
Gengoldy wrote:Of all the games I've played, and there have been some poor sports and cursing players out there, you are by far the lowest and with the least class.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class alster
 
Posts: 3083
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 12:35 pm
Location: Sweden...

Re: Really big maps: Would you play them?

Postby mibi on Tue Jul 08, 2008 8:32 am

oaktown wrote:
TaCktiX wrote:I think that with larger map sizes the feasibility of the concept becomes more important. If the uber-big experience adds to CC in an innovative way, allow it, if it's a massive rehash of something that could be done with fewer territories and within the current size restrictions, it should not be allowed. Even if the size restriction is lifted at some point, anything higher should be by special permission only.

Certainly we would need to monitor the mis-use of large maps closely in the Foundry, but if it is on a permission basis who is making this decision? based on what standard? this is a slippery slope down which we tread, saying that Map A gets to exceed the size limit because Andy or gimil or you or I like it, but Map B doesn't.

mibi wrote:now thats some smart talking. Put the decision to go higher in reasonable and rational hands.

I don't know who would volunteer to be that reasonable and rational decision maker, because they're going to be the least popular guy at this site after they deny a request or two.

Anybody who asks to make their map larger than the max size is going to do so because they think their map is worthy of the exception. That doesn't mean that they all actually are, but try convincing a stubborn mapmaker of this... and yes, all of us mapmakers are pretty stubborn. ;) There are going to be some ugly moments in the Foundry when folks don't get their way.

If larger maps are going to be allowed, the option will have to be available universally to all mapmakers. Some mapmakers will still be able to create their projects in a smaller size, but you know that most will choose to use more pixels even if they don't need it. We'll have bigger maps, but not necessarily better maps.

yeti made the point that vertical scrolling is easier than horizontal scrolling, and I tend to agree. I would personally be in favor of keeping the max width at about what it is right now (840 pixels I believe) but allowing the height to be at the discretion of the mapmaker. Thus good map ideas like the Trojan War map and the Skyscraper could happen.

And as for yeti's question about scrolling in an inner window or scrolling the screen, I'd say the only way this would work is if we had an inner window. This would allow you to scroll to any part of the map and still have access to the attack and fortify buttons. If we were just scrolling the screen, you could only see the bottom of the map when you were attacking, which would mean scrolling up after every attack to see where the army counts stood. Bleh.


Oakey, lets not pretend the foundry process is an objective one. All 'standards' from graphics to gameplay is based on someones opinion of what is acceptable. I don't see why Andy wouldn't have a problem giving the nod or shake to larger maps on a per map basis. He isn't around enough to feel the effects of unpopularity anyways. Larger map ideas could be vetted in a sticky with user feedback and an eventual yes or no from Andy. Makes sense to me.

I also like TaCtiX's idea of only allowing big maps for established map makers. It may not be the most egalitarian of methods, but I don't think the ACLU would mind, and it would be effective quality control. This should probably be foundry discussion though.
User avatar
Captain mibi
 
Posts: 3350
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 8:19 pm
Location: The Great State of Vermont

Re: Really big maps: Would you play them?

Postby wcaclimbing on Tue Jul 08, 2008 8:58 am

mibi wrote:Oakey, lets not pretend the foundry process is an objective one. All 'standards' from graphics to gameplay is based on someones opinion of what is acceptable. I don't see why Andy wouldn't have a problem giving the nod or shake to larger maps on a per map basis. He isn't around enough to feel the effects of unpopularity anyways.


Then we would have a ton of "you allowed _____ big map, so why won't you allow mine" debates all over the foundry. "cause my map idea is awesome and it should be allowed to be big size". So then Andy [or one of the CAs] has to step in and give the final word on the map, which will basically turn them into the bad guy, cause they said no to "my awesome map idea".

mibi wrote:Larger map ideas could be vetted in a sticky with user feedback and an eventual yes or no from Andy. Makes sense to me.

You already got your NO from Andy. They said Trojan was too big. Sure, you never got the sticky, but they still said no.
From what you are saying, it sounds like you want them to allow some big maps to get through early development, and then they give the final word on them after a bit more progress.
But following that, would you really be ok with it if Andy didn't allow your map, but chose to allow one made by me? I think this debate would just continue like it is now. People that get rejected will continue to push for their own maps to be allowed.

mibi wrote:This should probably be foundry discussion though.

I agree.
Image
User avatar
Private 1st Class wcaclimbing
 
Posts: 5598
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 10:09 pm
Location: In your quantum box....Maybe.

Re: Really big maps: Would you play them?

Postby White Moose on Tue Jul 08, 2008 9:02 am

I would play a very big map if it was a fun gameplay.
Image
Highest Score: 3374
User avatar
Major White Moose
 
Posts: 2015
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 6:33 am
Location: Sweden

Re: Really big maps: Would you play them?

Postby PLAYER57832 on Tue Jul 08, 2008 10:06 am

If big maps are allowed, there would need to be additional CLEAR guidelines. There would still need to be some size limit (probably), and some process to explain why the bigger size is truly necessary.

I could, for example, see a bigger "Arms Race" type map, but probably not a big "Actium", just because of the clutter and so forth.

Territories, colors, etc might need to be spelled out.

Finally, these big maps will likely be significantly differant from other types of maps. We already have a huge range .... Doodle, Realms and Waterloo probably mark three different extremes. There are already complaints about "specialization" and so forth. I suspect these maps would only compound those issues.

If implemented, perhaps they should be in a kind of "spin-off" of the regular CC site, or a kind of "sub site" -- even if just as a temporary trial. The points would not add in with the regular CC points, (though if on a trial basis, there might be provisions to include points later) but folks could play, try and really see if it might work out.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Really big maps: Would you play them?

Postby mibi on Tue Jul 08, 2008 10:23 am

wcaclimbing wrote:
mibi wrote:Oakey, lets not pretend the foundry process is an objective one. All 'standards' from graphics to gameplay is based on someones opinion of what is acceptable. I don't see why Andy wouldn't have a problem giving the nod or shake to larger maps on a per map basis. He isn't around enough to feel the effects of unpopularity anyways.


Then we would have a ton of "you allowed _____ big map, so why won't you allow mine" debates all over the foundry. "cause my map idea is awesome and it should be allowed to be big size". So then Andy [or one of the CAs] has to step in and give the final word on the map, which will basically turn them into the bad guy, cause they said no to "my awesome map idea".


I don't think it would be that big of an issue, as long as big maps were handled by map makers who already have a map in play. And Andy is already a bad guy to those who disagree with him. I don't think Andy's feelings should really be an issue here. Andy probably gets the least abuse of any mod on the site.

wcaclimbing wrote:
mibi wrote:Larger map ideas could be vetted in a sticky with user feedback and an eventual yes or no from Andy. Makes sense to me.

You already got your NO from Andy. They said Trojan was too big. Sure, you never got the sticky, but they still said no.
From what you are saying, it sounds like you want them to allow some big maps to get through early development, and then they give the final word on them after a bit more progress.
But following that, would you really be ok with it if Andy didn't allow your map, but chose to allow one made by me? I think this debate would just continue like it is now. People that get rejected will continue to push for their own maps to be allowed.


Andy said no to all big maps. According to the poll, 80% so far are open to larger maps. I don't see this issue being settled because a mod said so several months ago, do you? I think the Trojan map should be used as a test case for larger maps, its smaller horizontally than World 2.1 so it won't break the format, and it's one of the most developed map in the foundry. If people are receptive to the idea, and we know that chaos hasn't ensued, then a process should be implemented to vet other larger map ideas.

If Andy didn't allow Trojan but instead allowed a map of yours that was larger, I would have no problem as long as Andy provided reasoning as to why your map is acceptable and Trojan is not. The trick is to judge maps when they are ideas before they are full on maps. People won't bang their head against a wall if there is no effort put into it, like an idea. The Trojan War and qwert's ww2 map are entirely different and should be taken on a case by case basis.

We are trying to push the boundaries here, if its done right, it's called progress.
User avatar
Captain mibi
 
Posts: 3350
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 8:19 pm
Location: The Great State of Vermont

Re: Really big maps: Would you play them?

Postby gdeangel on Tue Jul 08, 2008 10:59 am

You could solve some of the contention by making a clear limit on the number of large maps that are open at any time, and have a policy that the map gets pulled if it falls below a certain usage on the map stat tracking by Carin and there is another "large map" ready to be quenched.

I think a good number would be no more than 4-8 large maps active at any time. Andy or whoever becomes the arbiter of large maps would need to just approve them on first come first serve basis consistent with the standards for current quenching of maps, and when quenched, they go into a queue. The first 4-8 go up on the site for a month, and all that fall below some number of games in a month get bumped and the next one in the queue goes up.

I don't think you can kill a good project just because it has horizontal scrolling requirements. The game play and concepts may be so killer that it's worth putting them up. It should be a map makers decision whether he/she wants to have their map set for "permanent" status by complying with the size limit, or wants to go the "oversized" route, which eases the limitations on design but means you may not have a map that lasts very long on the site - so it REALLY has to be great, in terms of objective popularity to make it worth while to opt for that route.
My ever constant two last games seem to have no end in sight!
User avatar
Sergeant gdeangel
 
Posts: 779
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 11:48 pm
Location: In the Basement

Re: Really big maps: Would you play them?

Postby Ditocoaf on Fri Jul 11, 2008 8:53 pm

I still argue that none of this has to be a problem. Examples:

You don't allow maps with a needless amount of territories that doesn't add much to the quality... yet you don't have a clear defined "territory limit".

You don't allow maps that are so oversaturated in color that they're ugly... yet you don't have a "saturation limit".

You don't allow maps that have too much useless destracting decoration... yet you don't set a maximum number of non-gameplay-related decorations.

You don't want maps with excess size that doesn't add anything to the quality? ... You don't need a "size limit".

Just JUDGE IT QUALITATIVELY, like everything else. You'll say things like "This map seems to be 'big for the sake of big'. Could you trim it down?" "I'm afraid nobody will want to play this map; it isn't interesting enough to warrant the excess size." It's the sort of thing you do every day in the foundry... and map makers try to make maps that people will want to play. No need to set a quantitative limit...
Image

>----------✪ Try to take down the champion in the continuous IPW/GIL tournament! ✪----------<

Note to self: THINK LESS LIVE MORE
Private 1st Class Ditocoaf
 
Posts: 1054
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 9:17 pm
Location: Being eaten by the worms and weird fishes

Re: Really big maps: Would you play them?

Postby Joodoo on Sat Jul 12, 2008 7:05 am

Ditocoaf wrote:I still argue that none of this has to be a problem. Examples:

You don't allow maps with a needless amount of territories that doesn't add much to the quality... yet you don't have a clear defined "territory limit".

You don't allow maps that are so oversaturated in color that they're ugly... yet you don't have a "saturation limit".

You don't allow maps that have too much useless destracting decoration... yet you don't set a maximum number of non-gameplay-related decorations.

You don't want maps with excess size that doesn't add anything to the quality? ... You don't need a "size limit".

Just JUDGE IT QUALITATIVELY, like everything else. You'll say things like "This map seems to be 'big for the sake of big'. Could you trim it down?" "I'm afraid nobody will want to play this map; it isn't interesting enough to warrant the excess size." It's the sort of thing you do every day in the foundry... and map makers try to make maps that people will want to play. No need to set a quantitative limit...


=D>
User avatar
Lieutenant Joodoo
 
Posts: 1639
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 12:19 am
Location: Greater Toronto, Canada

Re: Really big maps: Would you play them?

Postby Ditocoaf on Sun Jul 13, 2008 12:29 am

Joodoo wrote: =D>

Thanks for your agreement/support... but unfortunately I don't think that any of the foundry mods will ever read this.
Image

>----------✪ Try to take down the champion in the continuous IPW/GIL tournament! ✪----------<

Note to self: THINK LESS LIVE MORE
Private 1st Class Ditocoaf
 
Posts: 1054
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 9:17 pm
Location: Being eaten by the worms and weird fishes

Previous

Return to Conquer Club Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users