So I'm not done expressing my discontent about the avatar and signature limitations here (no seriously, we're lagging behind the rest of the internet). Growing common resolution sizes also make these avatars appear smaller and smaller on a screen. BUT ITS OKAY. Because I've devised a solution.
Since many don't like the idea of using more data, and avatars are a rather meager 125 x 125 size, I propose that we allow the size to be changed to a maximum of 168 x 256 pixels on the condition that signature images be disabled.
This allows for higher level of personalization in avatars, and also larger avatar file sizes, without compromising data use. A user can use a maximum of 120 kB without any other items, so it would make sense to allow the new option include a maximum of 120 kB.
Of course, there's no reason to disable it for all users, just for the users that want the extra avatar space. And if they don't, they don't have to take it and keep whatever they wish.
It can be integrated into the current scheme by only allowing the option after the signature item has been purchased, ensuring that the maximum data use between the two system is equivalent. So it's not even like we're giving it away for free.
So, thoughts?
Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Mar 29 2012, 4:27 am by Sacrieur.
None.
Let me show you how to hump without making love.
Personally I love the idea. A lot of that space is wasted anyway and I am sure it feels neglected. When it saw this, excite it got.
None.
I only chose the "hybrid" option because I know that there's no way it's going to be a forced change. If it was my decision, I would just remove signature images, since almost all of them are nothing more than just big boxes with the user's name written in it. It's not very necessary, and having larger avatars would be a lot better. I'd rather have a clear and high-res avatar than some box in my signature has repeats my name.
This thread would be better if the current size of avatars was right.
This thread would be better if the current size of avatars was right.
I wish I knew what you were talking about
None.
I'd rather have signatures with images than larger avatars.
I'm moving this to Null, since this wont be changing anytime soon.
EDIT:
Also, supposing many of the posters in this thread had larger avatars, there would be a whole lot of blank space in their posts. I don't see how this saves space in any way.
EDIT2:
I see in the Shoutbox that you used
http://forums.starcraft.org/threads/47295-Starcraft-Fan-Poster as an example. Personally I think that's pretty massive and distracting, not to mention it creates a ton of empty space.
Post has been edited 3 time(s), last time on Mar 29 2012, 4:56 am by DevliN.
Currently Working On: My Overwatch addiction.
Let me show you how to hump without making love.
bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla
Nobody cares about your opinion, put it back.
None.
Also:
[10:32 pm] DevliN -- "Sacrieur -- and my idea got shot down because it looks unappealing to some people and it wastes -9 pixels of space" I said it wouldn't change anytime soon, because frankly no one should expect changes to SEN until Cecil is done with v6.
I'm fine if anyone wants to keep discussing this, but this wont be a change that will take place anytime soon and should be discussed closer to the release of v6. I still personally think that having larger avatars has the possibility of wasting more space, and if anyone disagrees with that, that's absolutely fine.
Currently Working On: My Overwatch addiction.
i choose martial law because SEN IS NOT A FUCKING DEMOCRACY
Also, supposing many of the posters in this thread had larger avatars, there would be a whole lot of blank space in their posts.
That is what ran through my head too.
If a user had the proposed avatar size with no signature and one line of words in their post, there would be an unnecessary gap pressing down the thread.
None.
