Complaint / Question - Big BnG maps

[TheWalrus]

lets review the series of events

1.  you say that the map is ok for you
2.  you lose
3.  you get mad
4.  you post complaint

Yanme never agreed to the map like you did in the chat, yet you are the one posting the complaint, not him.  I think that says a lot about him as a player, and as you as a player.  I think everyone sees that part though.

[Kaleu]

lets review the series of events

1.  you say that the map is ok for you
2.  you lose
3.  you get mad
4.  you post complaint

Yanme never agreed to the map like you did in the chat, yet you are the one posting the complaint, not him.  I think that says a lot about him as a player, and as you as a player.  I think everyone sees that part though.

I asked you politely to read my chat and not to read what you want to, so I will save your time and quote it to you.

[kaleu-boo] its ok for me anyway
[FUB`Sbaffo] i've played on bigger maps
[kaleu-boo] but I will open a topic
[kaleu-boo] to ask if its allowed

Delete this miserable post already, you are in my block list from now on.

[TheWalrus]

lets review the series of events

1.  you say that the map is ok for you
2.  you lose
3.  you get mad
4.  you post complaint

Yanme never agreed to the map like you did in the chat, yet you are the one posting the complaint, not him.  I think that says a lot about him as a player, and as you as a player.  I think everyone sees that part though.

I asked you politely to read my chat and not to read what you want to, so I will save your time and quote it to you.

[kaleu-boo] its ok for me anyway
[FUB`Sbaffo] i've played on bigger maps
[kaleu-boo] but I will open a topic
[kaleu-boo] to ask if its allowed

Delete this miserable post already, you are in my block list from now on.

Thats exactly what i typed, yes.

You havent a leg to stand on making arguments like that.

The one thing you were right about is that this thread is indeed worthless, good to see you've recognized that.  at least avi disagreed with the map when he posted his complaint.  You agree with map then come here hoping MI will give you a free win?  Its quite pathetic, even by your standards.

[Kaleu]

lets review the series of events

1.  you say that the map is ok for you
2.  you lose
3.  you get mad
4.  you post complaint

Yanme never agreed to the map like you did in the chat, yet you are the one posting the complaint, not him.  I think that says a lot about him as a player, and as you as a player.  I think everyone sees that part though.

I asked you politely to read my chat and not to read what you want to, so I will save your time and quote it to you.

[kaleu-boo] its ok for me anyway
[FUB`Sbaffo] i've played on bigger maps
[kaleu-boo] but I will open a topic
[kaleu-boo] to ask if its allowed

Delete this miserable post already, you are in my block list from now on.

Thats exactly what i typed, yes.

You havent a leg to stand on making arguments like that.

The one thing you were right about is that this thread is indeed worthless, good to see you've recognized that.  at least avi disagreed with the map when he posted his complaint.  You agree with map then come here hoping MI will give you a free win?  Its quite pathetic, even by your standards.

Jesus Christ.

Seriously, are you reading my posts at all?
I said that I would open the topic in the very first minutes of the game wheter winning or losing.
You are just implying stuff about me.
I am not mad, this is not a request for free win neither a complaint to void the game.
Reason/Proof.

1. I haven't posted games ID nor mentioned the people involved.
2. I have mentioned about 2 times that the game should keep but my doubt shouldn't.
3. Game was so insignificant that I played it 2 days ago and just remind myself today after browsing my recent games.

[TheWalrus]

Jesus Christ.

Seriously, are you reading my posts at all?
I said that I would open the topic in the very first minutes of the game wheter winning or losing.
You are just implying stuff about me.
I am not mad, this is not a request for free win neither a complaint to void the game.
Reason/Proof.

1. I haven't posted games ID nor mentioned the people involved.
2. I have mentioned about 2 times that the game should keep but my doubt shouldn't.
3. Game was so insignificant that I played it 2 days ago and just remind myself today after browsing my recent games.

Oh I must have gotten confused, mostly because the thread title says "Complaint"

Or did I title it that way to imply something?

[Anubis]

There was a similar thread a couple days/week ago, still not a definitive rule? Don't be so lazy and just do it.

General consensus, I think, was that big maps are allowed in certain schemes, so I'd assume a host that picks a big map has all the right to pick a big map even if the other team is not happy with it, however,  the other team should be allowed to prepare for a bigger map to change resolution for example. So I propose the following:

1. It's the responsibility of the player(s) that join the host to check if a map is big or not in schemes were different sizes are allowed, such as: (insert schemes). When lighting up you agree that you are ready for the map!
1b.: When asked, the host has to answer if a map is big or not and allow his opponent to make preparations.

[xSniperx]

Wally you badman !

[Anubis]

I did some research and came across the following:

Time: April 25, 2013, 05:37 AM
Description:
BnG is played on an open island map with default width size (1920 pix).

Source: https://www.tus-wa.com/schemes/scheme-992/

The game was played under the current BnG scheme rules and the game differs in map size which is clearly stated to be default size of 1920 pix and thus violates the official BnG rules.
So to be frank, it was against the rules to change the size of the map for classic BnG.

Also, it is open for debate since the Map description is not listed under rules, which is a flaw. Map characteristics and scheme settings should ALL be listed under rules of a scheme to make them clear. Is the description just an example/overview or a rule? That's what I read when I saw them.

Now, my personal opinion would be to change the rules to allow bigger maps for certain schemes like BnG. Though, it should limit the size because it can get out of hand and we all know people would abuse unlimited map size (think humongous width like 4k+ pixels)

[Sensei]

Now, my personal opinion would be to change the rules to allow bigger maps for certain schemes like BnG. Though, it should limit the size because it can get out of hand and we all know people would abuse unlimited map size (think humongous width like 4k+ pixels)

Agree. And to add: Size of the map should be limited in 3 ways.
1v1 (300px wider), 2v2 (600 px wider), 3v3 (900 px wider) - Didn't do any counting, just talking out of the head.

Whoever played 3v3 bng knows what i'm talking about. After 1 hide opening on 1920x696 you feel like a fish out of the water. There's nowhere to go anymore. Your only options are to wait for getting killed or pile one of your teammates.

[Sbaffo]

Now, my personal opinion would be to change the rules to allow bigger maps for certain schemes like BnG. Though, it should limit the size because it can get out of hand and we all know people would abuse unlimited map size (think humongous width like 4k+ pixels)

Agree. And to add: Size of the map should be limited in 3 ways.
1v1 (300px wider), 2v2 (600 px wider), 3v3 (900 px wider) - Didn't do any counting, just talking out of the head.

Whoever played 3v3 bng knows what i'm talking about. After 1 hide opening on 1920x696 you feel like a fish out of the water. There's nowhere to go anymore. Your only options are to wait for getting killed or pile one of your teammates.

oh finally, someone clearly understood why i used a bigger map (dunno why it should be even called bigger for 200 pixels lels)

[Peja]

Hides are as overrated as happiness or sex. But big maps in BnG 2 vs 2 games counter the abuse of the distance rule by teleporting your first worm to the middle of the map while leaving the opposite team with 1/3 of the map, which is almost nothing on normal sized maps.

[Kaleu]

Now, my personal opinion would be to change the rules to allow bigger maps for certain schemes like BnG. Though, it should limit the size because it can get out of hand and we all know people would abuse unlimited map size (think humongous width like 4k+ pixels)

Agree. And to add: Size of the map should be limited in 3 ways.
1v1 (300px wider), 2v2 (600 px wider), 3v3 (900 px wider) - Didn't do any counting, just talking out of the head.

Whoever played 3v3 bng knows what i'm talking about. After 1 hide opening on 1920x696 you feel like a fish out of the water. There's nowhere to go anymore. Your only options are to wait for getting killed or pile one of your teammates.

WA map editor doesn't allow large bit maps, and some people including me don't want to be dependent of an 3rd party mapmaker tool, how to proceed?
I personally like default map sizes because my resolution isn't the best, so the smaller the better overview of the map...


Nice research Anubis, just enough to see that TUS need some simple but essential changes in the rules.
It's about the principle of rules, why have them if they don't apply? Or have people guessing what's wrong and what's not?
It's kinda retarded ppl just say its fine just because of small amount of pixels when rules say it's actual not...

[Sensei]

WA map editor doesn't allow large bit maps, and some people including me don't want to be dependent of an 3rd party mapmaker tool, how to proceed?

So..
3rd party tool is ok when you rope cheating with ahk.
It's ok when you play roper with transparent water.

But when you occasionally need to make 2 clicks in mapgen for bigger map it's too much work for you.

Point taken, I'm off this thread.

[xSniperx]

WA map editor doesn't allow large bit maps, and some people including me don't want to be dependent of an 3rd party mapmaker tool, how to proceed?

So..
3rd party tool is ok when you rope cheating with ahk.
It's ok when you play roper with transparent water.

But when you occasionally need to make 2 clicks in mapgen for bigger map it's too much work for you.

Point taken, I'm off this thread.

Daymmm shots fired !

[Senator]

General consensus, I think, was that big maps are allowed in certain schemes, so I'd assume a host that picks a big map has all the right to pick a big map even if the other team is not happy with it, however,  the other team should be allowed to prepare for a bigger map to change resolution for example. So I propose the following:

1. It's the responsibility of the player(s) that join the host to check if a map is big or not in schemes were different sizes are allowed, such as: (insert schemes). When lighting up you agree that you are ready for the map!
1b.: When asked, the host has to answer if a map is big or not and allow his opponent to make preparations.

The map size rules are a mess. BnG is the only scheme where the rules say the map should be default sized. On the other hand, big maps have been used in some other schemes such as Shopper and WxW. How can you justify allowing big maps in Shopper but not in Hysteria, for example? I don't think you can.

Btw the map size of BnG was stated clearly in the rules earlier: "BnG map must have default width size (1920 pix), not more and not less." Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20150316151550/https://www.tus-wa.com/schemes/scheme-992/ Having such a strict rule only in BnG scheme seemed stupid, that's why it was taken away from the rules section and left indefinite, hehe. I can put it back under the rules if you want.

In Shopper and WxW the map size has based on agreement so far and I think it could be like that with all the schemes. No one should be forced to play on a big map if he doesn't want, though. We will probably make this more clear in the rules. If you get accidentally into a game on a big map, you could request a normal map and quit.