Conquer Club

Recently I and several others have been bumbling around the possibility of really big maps. I'm talking about the sort that would be bigger than your monitor and would require scrolling to view all of. Right now there are hard-and-fast rules that no map can be bigger than 600px in height and 630px in width on the small size (840 and 800 on large). So simply, if a really big map was released, would you play it, and why?

Sure this can give more options as maps where you add Dungeon Level, and Groundfloor connected by stairs.

Even tough im not so found of the scrolling i think i would have playd it if not the map as been aas "Squeesed" as Waterloo.

I'll definitely play it, so make it as massive as you can because I dwell in complex and elaborate challenges but I can't promise you that I would play it frequently though.

somewhat similar topic here. there's poll results that might be interesting to some people

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=25899



I think they reduced the size of world 2.1 sometime after that. I know they talked about it at least

Depends the type of map. New players tend to flock to geographical types of maps. When I was a new player, world 2.1 was my favorite map, and I still play it quite frequently (although not as much when I first started).

There has been loads of discussion about this, probably around 6 months ago or just after mibi and qwert started developing their larger than CC maps

I think, bigger the better

Yes, I would play on a map that I had to scroll thru. (hell, I have to do some scrolling for most maps anyway, what's the difference)

The problem is that if the size restriction is lifted, then people will end up making big maps for the sake of making big maps.

However, maps like WWII Europe (much more palatable in its giant size than in its current much-smaller incarnation) and Troy are innovative and attractive enough to be worth bending the rules for.

Ultimately, this would be a matter of lack pulling the trigger on a modification to the size restriction.

From a design point of view...

Vertical scrolling is much more acceptable than Horizontal scrolling.

C.

yeti_c wrote:From a design point of view...

Vertical scrolling is much more acceptable than Horizontal scrolling.

C.

i concur

agreed...i would play larger maps like ww2 europe..world 3.0
i trust the foundry mods that massive maps meet high standards

bottom line: yes!

how big are we talking here? 1600 pixels? 3200? No limit? Because at some point any map becomes too big to play, and no matter where you draw the line there's always going to be somebody who says the max size isn't big enough.

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.

oaktown wrote:how big are we talking here? 1600 pixels? 3200? No limit? Because at some point any map becomes too big to play, and no matter where you draw the line there's always going to be somebody who says the max size isn't big enough.

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.

So here poses the next question...

Would you rather

a) Scroll the map in an inner window
b) Scroll the screen (as we do now if we have large maps on small screens)

C.

PS Note also - that at present - vertically large maps affect the layout in no way whatsoever - but Horizontally excessive maps - knock the layout of the rightside out (i.e. players section)

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.

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

I have been wondering for a long time now how they plan to get the "Skyscraper" map that is under development in the foundary boiled down to the required size. The whole innovative concept there is to have enough space to give the "names" on this site each a little recognition, which I think is great. Clearly, though, this sort of thing did not make Madness a greatly popular, site enhancing map even though it pay homage to four from the core team of cc...

But I will also say this - better to scroll maps than make them ungodly hard to read. And, with the floated command menu from BoB, game UI would not be to bad. But imagine the Nood without Bob who joins one of these maps, gets wiped out of the 3/4 of the map he can't see on screen, or fails to notice a big bonus off screen. This has potential to be a huge drag on enthusiasm of new player for the site. If these types of maps are allowed, they should be set apart clearly so they do not taint the rest of the site for people who don't like them...

i think reading is a requirement for this site, and with that being said, i think any noob players should know what they're getting into before they start a game.

i am personally for larger maps because i like having everything really clear to see

I'd never play a big map - it takes away from the game and becomes annyoing - nuff said

I have to scroll right now, so in a sense I am already playing "big" maps.

I clicked "other" for two reasons. Whatever the size, clarity is a must. Axium and Waterloo pretty well stretch the limits on easy visibility for size of icons and such. (age showing)

Also, it should be something that is worth enlarging. That is, not just a big map because this option is available.


One idea I had that might fit in with this is to have a sort of "layered" or "series" type game, where you have to go from one map to the other. I don't know if it would work or not.

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.

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.

People who dont want to play large maps dont need to play it. But , there is a demand for large maps from the CC community. I think the limit shouldnt be any bigger than the current big maps that are in development (Troy and qwerts map).

I and many people would prefer to scroll down rather left to right. But, then its just common sense.

I would love to play on any big maps, as long as they're not confusing like Actium or Waterloo (although they're not considered to be big).

Oaktown wrote: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.

The standards are already there, they just need to be stricter. All maps have to be inherently unique in some way. Large maps would not be able to get away with purely a size argument, it would have to be something that virtually requires the map size to do the idea justice (like illustrating an entire continent of WWII, or the entire Pacific theater). We know of maps where this is the case, and I'm sure there are dozens more ideas cooking of a scale that requires being really big. Also I think it would be required that the mapmaker be established (quenched map). The bigger the project, the more likely it is to crash and burn in the wrong hands, that's a fundamental truth of project planning.

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