Why not a 384x384 sized map?

[EvilDingo]

Now, I know the typical path through sizes usually doubles. If we ever had a 16x16 map, we'd likely go to 32x32, 64x64, 128x128, 256x256, 512x512 etc. But there is no law that says you have to double the number, is there? Why not instead of doubling the size, we just raise it by 1.5? This map is incredibly too large for the late shift and people playing in Europe. Right now there are 140 people playing. On the old maps, this still was a very playable number. On this map. It's not. You think you have a hard time finding a good fight when there are 400 on. Think of 150!

It feels weird to log on, look at the map situation, then log off. I think 512x512 is too large. It will take months (years?) to grow into this map unless there is some mass playerbase increase soon.

[J_A_B]

The AH map editor doesn't support 384.  There's only 4 sizes to choose from (unles this has been changed recently).

However, I see no reason why you couldn't use a 512 map and simply not fill it all up.  Mindanao was always so crowded because, in practical terms, it was a 200-mile triangle instead of a 250 mile square.

I like the overall design of the AK's map.  What I don't like is the 512 x 512 size which they were told to build it to.  

J_A_B

[AKIron]

You can easily create a land mass of any size within a 512 map, add the number of fields you see fit. Get started.

[eskimo2]

Originally posted by EvilDingo
It feels weird to log on, look at the map situation, then log off. I think 512x512 is too large. It will take months (years?) to grow into this map unless there is some mass playerbase increase soon.

That's funny.

I used to log off of the MA before 1.10.
Nothing but huge gang-bang furballs.
Now the possibilities are endless.
This map has made the MA much better, IMO.

eskimo