• 🏆 Texturing Contest #33 is OPEN! Contestants must re-texture a SD unit model found in-game (Warcraft 3 Classic), recreating the unit into a peaceful NPC version. 🔗Click here to enter!
  • 🏆 Hive's 6th HD Modeling Contest: Mechanical is now open! Design and model a mechanical creature, mechanized animal, a futuristic robotic being, or anything else your imagination can tinker with! 📅 Submissions close on June 30, 2024. Don't miss this opportunity to let your creativity shine! Enter now and show us your mechanical masterpiece! 🔗 Click here to enter!

Limiting Map Filesize?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Level 12
Joined
May 9, 2009
Messages
735
Every KB's a dollar. Everyone gets an $8,192 budget to make their maps. Being worth the price is important for usefulness. As such, you should find the cheapest method of producing your resources, and if no cheap method is available for the purpose, then the quality must justify the price. And, for the love of the hive, Stop harassing me about my "low" ratings of 4/5.

Every time I see this statement it annoys me...

The analogy of file size to real world money has a few holes in it. You don't get to keep any 'dollars' that you save. If you make a map that is 1 mb you don't get 7 extra mb for your next map or for an extra pizza next weekend. In fact you get nothing. And neither does the player lose anything from playing a map that is 'not worth its price'.

Why should we find the 'cheapest' method of producing maps? Is 8 mb really that much of a burden for the players to bear? The way I play we always share links to the map before the game, making downloading in-game a non-problem. The map's size does not reduce the quality of the game-play even if it doesn't increase it.

Furthermore, doesn't the map size limit remover blow a massive hole in this kind of attitude? Now your 'budget' is almost infinite.

I would argue for the contrary: unless you have a good reason to keep your map small make sure that it is big. Every kb that you are not using can be used for awesome imports that can improve your map greatly. Music, sounds, skins, models, icons, do not hesitate to use any of them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Level 21
Joined
Nov 4, 2013
Messages
2,017
In my opinion, I'd rather pay a lot of dollars to get a good result and plenty of profit instead of restraining myself to something cheap and not good. I might pay like 8000$ (8 MB map) and get a fair profit. Let's say every download is worth $1 and every 5/5 you get is worth $2500 thus if you get four 5/5, you already won $10000 with a net gain of $2000 (all that excluding the downloads). Therefore I can say I concur with what you're saying Makoodzaka.
 
Level 21
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
3,232
I'd argue that map size limits, especially those that you create yourself, are a crucial part of making quality maps.
I personally try to use as few imports as possible and instead focus on the mechanics. The main point why I import stuff is not to spice the map up, but to gain access to something that simply doesn't exist.
Models such as this are very hard to achieve through ingame means.
On the other hand I've seen many maps that import tons of awesome models just to disappoint me with bad gameplay.

In most cases, the map size limit works to limit people's lazyness.
Furthermore, the map size limit remover is a separate tool from the base game. It's incredibly unreasonable to expect most people to have it.
Even a quality map, such as Gaias Retaliation, would have problems with trying to implement such a requirement, despite the fact that it would be immensely useful.

tl;dr - Focus on actual gameplay and you'll have a hard time ever reaching the limit. At that point, you'll likely have a subcommunity that is willing to go through with stuff like the size limit remover. Being rich is no excuse to waste money.
 
Level 30
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
5,246
Whenever a see or play a map exceeded the 8mb file, it makes me think "why can't we have another patch that can increase the current 8mb filesize to something more?"

I also get irritated why their are limitations to this current patch hold we are handling right now, but as much as I want to argue about it, their is a reason why limitation on the map is crucial and mandatory to begin with, mainly its to prevent lag, but still I think its best if we would have another patch that will increase the current limitation.
 
Level 12
Joined
May 9, 2009
Messages
735
I personally try to use as few imports as possible and instead focus on the mechanics. The main point why I import stuff is not to spice the map up, but to gain access to something that simply doesn't exist.
Is is a shame that you don't explore the vast variety of imports that you could use to greatly improve your maps in this case. Music, sounds, models, skins, icons... all can be used very effectively to make a map even with dull mechanics enjoyable. Combining good mechanics with stunning visuals and sounds is even better. You aren't doing your map any favours by avoiding imports, especially since having a map bigger by 5 or 6 mb literally has no negatives to it.

On the other hand I've seen many maps that import tons of awesome models just to disappoint me with bad gameplay.
And how much more disappointed you would be if there weren't even those models to look at? Having great imports and good gameplay are not mutually exclusive.

In most cases, the map size limit works to limit people's lazyness.
People can be lazy with or without using many imports. In the context of the argument it is more reasonable to see those who abstain from spicing their maps up with imports as lazy since they have an opportunity to improve their maps but don't since 'every kb is a dollar'.

tl;dr - Focus on actual gameplay and you'll have a hard time ever reaching the limit.
The amount of models, sounds, and music the world editor has to offer is very limited. If you seek to make a map with a theme that differs from a eurpean mideval one you need imports - and a lot of them. Gameplay alone is not enough for a map to be enjoyable. Otherwise you might just as well use one model for all your units and ignore the terrain tilesets entirely.

Being rich is no excuse to waste money.
Your allusion to the failed analogy doesn't in any way make it a good one. Show me how my criticisms of it are invalid.
 

Chaosy

Tutorial Reviewer
Level 40
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
13,184
I don't give a fuck about map size. The internet speed allows me to download a 8mb map within seconds. I know my internet is above average. But still, it shouldn't take more than a few minutes unless you live Somalia or something.
no racism intended

The map limit was pretty logical 10 years ago, but not at this day and age. A more logical limit would be like 50 mb or something.
 
Level 25
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
4,651
Are there any ways of say, making maps use local files as models?
So you could, download models and then keep them for the next map, so that you no longer download the same models/skins/sounds each time you're downloading a map.
 
Level 21
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
3,232
Makoodzaka, apparently we are at different ends of the spectrum. Ideally yes, it would be possible to make better maps if the filesize limitation was larger. Practically it's almost always unnecessary.
By saying that the resources provided in the editor are scarce you make me think you've not really explored them as thoroughly as I have.
Note that you ignored half of my post.
 
Level 12
Joined
May 9, 2009
Messages
735
By saying that the resources provided in the editor are scarce you make me think you've not really explored them as thoroughly as I have.
By implying that they aren't makes me think you haven't tried making a map with specific theme e.g. star wars, oriental, modern. Using placeholders instead of proper models when they are available is simply lazy.

Note that you ignored half of my post.
The parts I ignored didn't contribute anything to your point. I can go through them if you like nevertheless.

I'd argue that map size limits, especially those that you create yourself, are a crucial part of making quality maps.

This is an introduction, you state your point of view.

Models such as this are very hard to achieve through ingame means.

You are giving an example of when you do use custom models. Look at the model and skin sections to see more examples of things you can't achieve through only in-game means.

Furthermore, the map size limit remover is a separate tool from the base game. It's incredibly unreasonable to expect most people to have it.
Even a quality map, such as Gaias Retaliation, would have problems with trying to implement such a requirement, despite the fact that it would be immensely useful... At that point, you'll likely have a subcommunity that is willing to go through with stuff like the size limit remover.


Here you are stating the obvious - that the map file size limit remover is a separate tool. I don't know how this helps your argument for the importance of map filesize limits when it comes to judging a map's quality.

It appears you are now arguing more about the map filesize limit remover. If you read my initial post I am arguing against the idea that keeping a low map filesize is a thing map creators should be aiming to do. The existence of the limit remover merely adds a cherry on top of my points. I agree though that it should be a little harder to play maps that require this tool but if you include it the description of your map and link to it it should be such a big problem.
 
Level 21
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
3,232
By implying that they aren't makes me think you haven't tried making a map with specific theme e.g. star wars, oriental, modern. Using placeholders instead of proper models when they are available is simply lazy.


The parts I ignored didn't contribute anything to your point. I can go through them if you like nevertheless.

I'd argue that map size limits, especially those that you create yourself, are a crucial part of making quality maps.

This is an introduction, you state your point of view.

Models such as this are very hard to achieve through ingame means.

You are giving an example of when you do use custom models. Look at the model and skin sections to see more examples of things you can't achieve through only in-game means.

Furthermore, the map size limit remover is a separate tool from the base game. It's incredibly unreasonable to expect most people to have it.
Even a quality map, such as Gaias Retaliation, would have problems with trying to implement such a requirement, despite the fact that it would be immensely useful... At that point, you'll likely have a subcommunity that is willing to go through with stuff like the size limit remover.


Here you are stating the obvious - that the map file size limit remover is a separate tool. I don't know how this helps your argument for the importance of map filesize limits when it comes to judging a map's quality.

It appears you are now arguing more about the map filesize limit remover. If you read my initial post I am arguing against the idea that keeping a low map filesize is a thing map creators should be aiming to do. The existence of the limit remover merely adds a cherry on top of my points. I agree though that it should be a little harder to play maps that require this tool but if you include it the description of your map and link to it it should be such a big problem.

This paragraph ignores the intention of my post. I never said that you should use sub-par placeholders if there are suitable models available. However, it's idealistic to think that this is how it truly happens.
Yes, there are maps that require different models than usual, but the vast majority do not. Over and again I see people import stuff just for the sake of importing.
Also, having a low filesize is still highly beneficial, as many people playing Wc3 do not live in the western world and do not have a fast internet connection. Bloating filesize just for the sake of bloating is stupid, but it still happens.
I'm saying all this as someone that has been through this stage of "Such shiny, must have". I do not argue against importing it general.

And this is all before I even get to the fact that you can have all those models without bloating map sizes at all. Local files are the key to this.
 
Level 12
Joined
May 9, 2009
Messages
735
This paragraph ignores the intention of my post. I never said that you should use sub-par placeholders if there are suitable models available. However, it's idealistic to think that this is how it truly happens.
Yes, there are maps that require different models than usual, but the vast majority do not. Over and again I see people import stuff just for the sake of importing.
Also, having a low filesize is still highly beneficial, as many people playing Wc3 do not live in the western world and do not have a fast internet connection. Bloating filesize just for the sake of bloating is stupid, but it still happens.
I'm saying all this as someone that has been through this stage of "Such shiny, must have". I do not argue against importing it general.

I do not disagree that maps can be bloated up with resources that do not contribute to the map in any positive way but to use this fact as an argument for purposefully limiting your map file-size just because every kb is a dollar is not reasonable (as I demonstrated before the dollar analogy is a desperately poor one). It appears that you back off your prior claims in this post. Do you still want to argue that map size limits, especially those that you create yourself, are a crucial part of making quality maps.?

I have doubts about but please confirm this. So far you haven't really defended that statement to any meaningful degree. The possibility of users adding bad resources to a map doesn't mean that using resources is bad just like adding bad gameplay mechanics doesn't make gameplay mechanics bad. The crux of your points boils down to this and it really doesn't help you demonstrate why map size limits are a crucial part of making quality maps. You could almost call it irrelevant.

If I am to take your word in regards to your statement you rate maps also based on their filesize (e.g. terrain 3/5, mechanics 4/5, filesize 2/5). As filesize does not impact the gameplay it is hard to find a good reason to do so. A more reasonable approach would be to play the map and examine how the customs resources are used.

And this is all before I even get to the fact that you can have all those models without bloating map sizes at all. Local files are the key to this.

Don't you need to download those local files along with the map? How is this any different from the no-limit mod that you criticized earlier?
 
Level 21
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
3,232
I do not disagree that maps can be bloated up with resources that do not contribute to the map in any positive way but to use this fact as an argument for purposefully limiting your map file-size just because every kb is a dollar is not reasonable (as I demonstrated before the dollar analogy is a desperately poor one). It appears that you back off your prior claims in this post. Do you still want to argue that map size limits, especially those that you create yourself, are a crucial part of making quality maps.?

I have doubts about but please confirm this. So far you haven't really defended that statement to any meaningful degree. The possibility of users adding bad resources to a map doesn't mean that using resources is bad just like adding bad gameplay mechanics doesn't make gameplay mechanics bad. The crux of your points boils down to this and it really doesn't help you demonstrate why map size limits are a crucial part of making quality maps. You could almost call it irrelevant.

If I am to take your word in regards to your statement you rate maps also based on their filesize (e.g. terrain 3/5, mechanics 4/5, filesize 2/5). As filesize does not impact the gameplay it is hard to find a good reason to do so. A more reasonable approach would be to play the map and examine how the customs resources are used.



Don't you need to download those local files along with the map? How is this any different from the no-limit mod that you criticized earlier?

I have not backed down on my original statement, you simply choose to intepret it as something that it isn't.
Somehow you've managed to miss my point by far. My point is not that filesize = bad, but rather that in most cases, it's not used wisely.
About locals, the crucial difference with them is that they don't have to be downloaded again and again.
About rating maps, I don't rate them at all. I vote with my feet, as do most people.
I don't know if you purposefully interpret my points wrong or simply can't do better, but there isn't much critique to respond to.
 
Level 12
Joined
May 9, 2009
Messages
735
I have not backed down on my original statement, you simply choose to intepret it as something that it isn't.
Somehow you've managed to miss my point by far. My point is not that filesize = bad, but rather that in most cases, it's not used wisely.
About locals, the crucial difference with them is that they don't have to be downloaded again and again.
About rating maps, I don't rate them at all. I vote with my feet, as do most people.
I don't know if you purposefully interpret my points wrong or simply can't do better, but there isn't much critique to respond to.

This is what you wrote.

I'd argue that map size limits, especially those that you create yourself, are a crucial part of making quality maps.

How can it be any more clear? There is only one thing one can get from this and that is what I got. I can't even phrase it any clearer - it is as clear cut as it gets. I understand if english isn't your native language but here you are basically saying low filesize = quality maps. Perhaps just bad wording on your part.

And do you have to download the no-limit mod more than once? If not it appears to do exactly the same as local files.
 
Level 21
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
3,232
This is what you wrote.

I'd argue that map size limits, especially those that you create yourself, are a crucial part of making quality maps.

How can it be any more clear? There is only one thing one can get from this and that is what I got. I can't even phrase it any clearer - it is as clear cut as it gets. I understand if english isn't your native language but here you are basically saying low filesize = quality maps. Perhaps just bad wording on your part.

And do you have to download the no-limit mod more than once? If not it appears to do exactly the same as local files.

Think of it as an economy. Would most people download a 300MB map in the lobby? Hell no. Would they download a 100KB map? Probably yes. By those 2 things I can deduce that there is some kind of scale. People's internet speeds, habits and enthusiasm vary, so the scale is not equally scaled for everyone.
It makes sense that people prefer to download smaller maps and that after a certain size, most people won't download the map at all. Thus, for a quality map it is crucial.

No it does not. The no-limit mod overrides the filesize check instead of making maps smaller, so it can not compare to local files in this sense.

Both the size limit and having to download stuff are things that impede people from getting to play the map. Making a map large because tools exist to override the limit is a sure-fire way to reduce your playerbase arbitrarily.

However, I have not argued that filesize = bad. At a certain scale it becomes economical to use some method of breaching the limit. The known methods are:
Local files - Only have to download each resource once. It might be necessary to run a small file that edits the registry(to allow local files).
Custom MPQ - Have to download an alternate MPQ. Have to rename the alternate and new MPQ to switch places.
Limit removal - Have to download a file.
Own game

Limit removal is the easiest way, because it only has a one-time effort cost for setting up(downloading it), but actually using it is a constant cost for every map above the limit, because you still have to download them.
Custom MPQ is the second best in simplicity, because you only have to download it once and then the maps can use it automatically. It also doesn't require setting any registry flags. However, it has a lower running cost than limit removal, because maps don't have to contain the files.
Local files are the most difficult method to use, but also the most efficient after the initial setup is done, as you only need one of each model(while having several custom MPQs can lead to duplicates of models and other problems) and the map sizes are small.
Making your own game is by far the best method for breaking any kind of limitations other than physics, but sadly it's not something most people here are capable of. Included for thoroughness; I'll leave this out in the further discussion.

When a project becomes sufficiently large that this kind of hassle is worth it, then it's quite likely that the map has and will have many more versions. Thus, the method for getting past this limitation should economize the running cost rather than setup. This already leaves out the limit removal method. Then it would be a question of whether to use custom MPQ or local files. MPQ is easier to use, but updating it will likely mean having to re-download the whole thing.

Each method has their own uses, but the use that you advocate for is counterproductive to getting people to actually play your map. Once you do reach the point where something like this is worth doing, you'll likely realize that the other options would be better.

However, I find it unlikely that you'll ever reach this point, because even the more establised projects(gaias retaliation) do not do this despite the benefits.
 
Level 12
Joined
May 9, 2009
Messages
735
I grow weary of your goal-post-shifting posts. After each post you make I demonstrate how you are mistaken and you bounce around in an attempt to get away from admitting fault and addressing my points. Here once again you go on some irrelevant tirade that doesn't help defend your initial claim.

Think of it as an economy. Would most people download a 300MB map in the lobby? Hell no. Would they download a 100KB map?
The map limit is 8 mb. The difference between 1 mb and 8 mb is negligible. It costs nothing for the player to download it if done through a link he will probably not even notice it. This is why comparing it to an economy or to dollars is so fallacious. The map makers lose nothing, the map downloaders lose nothing, perhaps the only ones who do are the of misguided puritans through their bruised egos.

It makes sense that people prefer to download smaller maps and that after a certain size, most people won't download the map at all. Thus, for a quality map it is crucial.

A gameplay of a quality map is in no way impacted by how popular it is or how many people choose to download it. Here you say that it does. Why do you make such demonstrably false statements?

However, I have not argued that filesize = bad.

Oh? But you just have. Stop changing your story half-way through - you're not making any sense.

I don't see how your paragraphs on ways of bypassing the map limit of much relevance to the core of the issue. Nevertheless, I don't really understand your problem with the no-limit mod - you download it the same way you do the local files but it's the same for each oversized map unlike the local files. You main criticism of it is that it, unlike using local files, uses maps that are large but you fail to explain why large maps are bad. Your assumption that they are once again conradicts your prior statement - However, I have not argued that filesize = bad.

At this point I don't even know if you're taking yourself seriously or not. You have failed to argue your point effectively and then attempted to convince me that what you were clearly saying wasn't really what you were saying and then you changed your mind a few a times and seem to be stuck between contradicting ideas. I don't even know what you're arguing for at this point.

In any case, I think for now this thread demonstrates that there is no reasonable defense for the statement that was mentioned. Every kb is not a dollar, not by a long-shot, and those who advocate otherwise do so for no justifiable reason.
 
not everyone downloads from a link beforehand, and not everyone knows about the size limit remover. sometimes people just want to join a random hosted game, and would prefer not to wait 5 minutes to dl an 8mb map. while more imports doesn't mean worse gameplay, it doesn't necessarily mean better gameplay either.

so for convenience and accessibility's sake the better attitude would be to presume the un-contrary: 'unless i have a good reason to inflate my map, i should make sure imports are utilised as efficiently as possible'.
 
Level 21
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
3,232
Makoodzaka said:
I don't understand what you're saying and won't bother with trying to. Thus, I am right.

This is what your point seems to boil down to.
not everyone downloads from a link beforehand, and not everyone knows about the size limit remover. sometimes people just want to join a random hosted game, and would prefer not to wait 5 minutes to dl an 8mb map. while more imports doesn't mean worse gameplay, it doesn't necessarily mean better gameplay either.

so for convenience and accessibility's sake the better attitude would be to presume the un-contrary: 'unless i have a good reason to inflate my map, i should make sure imports are utilised as efficiently as possible'.
This is what I've been trying to make the OP understand.
 
Level 12
Joined
May 9, 2009
Messages
735
This is what your point seems to boil down to

I cannot read your mind. You have to express your ideas in words. You have yourself to blame for your bad wording. I am not going to strain my mind and pretend to be professor x just to 'understand what you're saying' - I can read thank you very much.

I never said that quote though, so I don't really see why you felt necessary to put words in my mouth. I responded to your posts - not to your thoughts, as I have no access to the latter.
 
Level 21
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
3,232
I cannot read your mind. You have to express your ideas in words. You have yourself to blame for your bad wording. I am not going to strain my mind and pretend to be professor x just to 'understand what you're saying' - I can read thank you very much.

I never said that quote though, so I don't really see why you felt necessary to put words in my mouth. I responded to your posts - not to your thoughts, as I have no access to the latter.

Whatever. Reading comprehension can be tough.
 

Dr Super Good

Spell Reviewer
Level 64
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Messages
27,229
The analogy of file size to real world money has a few holes in it. You don't get to keep any 'dollars' that you save. If you make a map that is 1 mb you don't get 7 extra mb for your next map or for an extra pizza next weekend. In fact you get nothing. And neither does the player lose anything from playing a map that is 'not worth its price'.
It actually is pretty good. Downloading the map takes time and bandwidth. Time can be translated to money based on human and computer upkeep. Bandwidth is directly translated to money in the form of packets having a transmission cost (someone pays, even if you pay a fixed amount). As such a 1 MB map is more cost effective than a 8 MB map.

The question actually is about how much of a difference the size makes rather than the cost. If you are like myself at the moment with fibre optic broadband it will take <8 seconds to upload/download the map. However if you are on a bog standard ADSL connection like a lot of people in the world are (and I was until recently) it could take 5 minutes to upload/download the map. A game with 11 new players would take nearly an hour of uploading (no peer to peer unfortunately) before the game can even start. You can be sure that even if there were enough players for that in this day and age it would never start with a full house.

As such for the average map I would recommend no more than 1-2 MB. This size is far more reasonable and practically everyone can upload maps with it (<1 minute upload/download). Only if your map is very popular or entering a final version (so not more downloads after) should you really take advantage of the full 8 MB.
 
Level 12
Joined
May 9, 2009
Messages
735
It actually is pretty good. Downloading the map takes time and bandwidth. Time can be translated to money based on human and computer upkeep. Bandwidth is directly translated to money in the form of packets having a transmission cost (someone pays, even if you pay a fixed amount). As such a 1 MB map is more cost effective than a 8 MB map.

The analogy was used in regards to making maps as opposed to downloading them. Either way if it is used for downloading then a better way to put would be 8 cents as opposed 8000 dollars.

The question actually is about how much of a difference the size makes rather than the cost. If you are like myself at the moment with fibre optic broadband it will take <8 seconds to upload/download the map. However if you are on a bog standard ADSL connection like a lot of people in the world are (and I was until recently) it could take 5 minutes to upload/download the map.

Is 8 mb really that much of a burden for the players to bear? The way I play we always share links to the map before the game, making downloading in-game a non-problem. The map's size does not reduce the quality of the game-play even if it doesn't increase it.

As such for the average map I would recommend no more than 1-2 MB. This size is far more reasonable and practically everyone can upload maps with it (<1 minute upload/download). Only if your map is very popular or entering a final version (so not more downloads after) should you really take advantage of the full 8 MB.

So you support sacrificing a map's potential and quality of gameplay for a small convenience in downloading. It's your choice but I personally value the map quality a little more than that.
 
Level 12
Joined
May 9, 2009
Messages
735
you assume more imports = greater 'map potential' (whatever that means) & quality of gameplay. more often than not, this is false.

Is is a shame that you don't explore the vast variety of imports that you could use to greatly improve your maps in this case. Music, sounds, models, skins, icons... all can be used very effectively to make a map even with dull mechanics enjoyable. Combining good mechanics with stunning visuals and sounds is even better. You aren't doing your map any favours by avoiding imports, especially since having a map bigger by 5 or 6 mb literally has no negatives to it.

And how much more disappointed you would be if there weren't even those models to look at? Having great imports and good gameplay are not mutually exclusive.

People can be lazy with or without using many imports. In the context of the argument it is more reasonable to see those who abstain from spicing their maps up with imports as lazy since they have an opportunity to improve their maps but don't since 'every kb is a dollar'.

....
 

Dr Super Good

Spell Reviewer
Level 64
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Messages
27,229
The analogy was used in regards to making maps as opposed to downloading them. Either way if it is used for downloading then a better way to put would be 8 cents as opposed 8000 dollars.
The value of currency does not mater. In the case of food processors or internet service providers they look at costs in fractions of sense and will make decisions to even save 0.001 cent. If you deal with 1,000,000 units a saving of 0.001 cent is still $1,000 which is enough to feed someone for a month. Make it 0.1 cent and you have enough to feed 100 people for a month.

What he said was more about budgeting and need rather than actually giving value to a currency. In 100 years from now you probably would roll on the floor laughing since $8,000 will not even buy you a packet of sweets, which is the total opposite of what you are saying now.

I do agree that it seems kind of excessive in the day of consoles with 6GB of memory, however it is not to be laughed at. Video game developers up until the current generation have had a lot of problems with memory and media budgets. Some old 8 and 16 bit games even had content cut just to meet the restrictions of data delivery at the time. Even with the Xbox 360 developers suffered due to the 2-layer DVD media it used limiting what they could deliver.

So you support sacrificing a map's potential and quality of gameplay for a small convenience in downloading. It's your choice but I personally value the map quality a little more than that.
What quality is sacrificed? All the maps I play about 1-2MB are required with the rest being bloat and unnecessary imports such as re-skins, custom models and even sound/music.

I come from a day where WC3 maps were limited to only 4MB. Quality maps existed then, which shows that quality maps do not need to be 8MB.

Is 8 mb really that much of a burden for the players to bear? The way I play we always share links to the map before the game, making downloading in-game a non-problem. The map's size does not reduce the quality of the game-play even if it doesn't increase it.
There are not enough players left to do that. Unless they download and start in 3 minutes they will leave and you will be the only person left in the lobby.

It used to really irritate me when people said "NO DL" when hosting games and expected you to find the link for yourself. Even if they give you the link it is a major inconvenience as opposed to sitting and downloading the map in the lobby. The last thing you want to do is inconvenience the dozen odd remaining players in WC3 as then you will never, ever get a full house game going.
 
Level 12
Joined
May 9, 2009
Messages
735
What quality is sacrificed? All the maps I play about 1-2MB are required with the rest being bloat and unnecessary imports such as re-skins, custom models and even sound/music.

You really think that music and sound are unnecessary? Perhaps it is just a taste thing but for me music, sounds, and visuals are all very important. I can keep on playing even a dull game with beautiful music and visuals. There are some maps that I replayed many times just because of the music that added so much to the gameplay. Your lack of appreciation for these important elements make me think that you didn't explore them to a significant extent.

There are not enough players left to do that. Unless they download and start in 3 minutes they will leave and you will be the only person left in the lobby.

It used to really irritate me when people said "NO DL" when hosting games and expected you to find the link for yourself. Even if they give you the link it is a major inconvenience as opposed to sitting and downloading the map in the lobby. The last thing you want to do is inconvenience the dozen odd remaining players in WC3 as then you will never, ever get a full house game going.

Do you play on battlenet? I never played on battlenet and only ever play on gameranger. It isn't hard to get a fullhouse, to share links and expect peopled to download them there. A few times a day there are Lordaeron the Aftermath games hosted which usually have around 10 players in them. In regards to links, most people expect to be given links when they enter a room with a new map. Downloading in-game is rare and people have to be told 'dl in-game'.
 

Dr Super Good

Spell Reviewer
Level 64
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Messages
27,229
Do you play on battlenet?
Yes, since I like to keep my Local Area Network local.

If you are playing on a third party network you might as well disable the 8MB map limit in the executable. It is not like Blizzard will ban you for cheating if you are not even using their services in the first place. The map limit is only really a problem for BattleNet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top