Graal Forums

Graal Forums (https://forums.graalonline.com/forums/index.php)
-   Graal Main Forum (English) (https://forums.graalonline.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   Avatar Size (https://forums.graalonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53233)

Minoc 06-18-2004 06:37 PM

Avatar Size
 
The current 65x65 limit is just too small, and there is no reason to keep it that way.
I believe it should be increased to at least 120x120 - 150x150.

Myukoi 06-18-2004 06:41 PM

Me too, and remove the whole 10 letters thing.

osrs 06-18-2004 06:48 PM

Yes, it should be revised. The posts should be in a whole page too, like before, not in blocks.

Nappa 06-18-2004 07:14 PM

Aye me matey.

Ningnong 06-18-2004 07:19 PM

*Agrees* I had to keep resizing my avatar to get it to work :|

Loriel 06-18-2004 07:24 PM

I disagree. I do not want so much graphical bloat, I just want to read the posts...
65x65 is more than enough.

Zero Hour 06-18-2004 07:34 PM

Yea, I think that 65 isn't bad, perhaps 100x100? That's a nice even number, and it's a comprimise.

Ningnong 06-18-2004 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loriel
I disagree. I do not want so much graphical bloat, I just want to read the posts...
65x65 is more than enough.

Never thought of that, probably because Im on a fast connection but for people with a slower connection could slow them down.

I still think we could increase it just a touch, I searched for avatars on google and like I picked the smallest one (every image had a small, med and large size) and I still needed to resize for graal forums.

GrowlZ1010 06-18-2004 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loriel
I disagree. I do not want so much graphical bloat, I just want to read the posts...

Well, there is the option to turn off avatars altogether in the User Control Panel, and if you're looking to just read the posts, it could come in handy. 100x100 or 128x128 sound like reasonable enhancements to me.

Minoc 06-18-2004 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ningnong
Never thought of that, probably because Im on a fast connection but for people with a slower connection could slow them down.

Hardly, since the text is loaded first.

Minoc 06-18-2004 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrowlZ1010
100x100 or 128x128 sound like reasonable enhancements to me.

128x128 is a standard, so that might be the best choice.

Loriel 06-18-2004 11:11 PM

What kind of standard?

galen 06-18-2004 11:24 PM

You guys are going to have to convince Unixmad to make any chagnes. I can't make any board setting modifications because of some admin panel restrictions or something. I can't even see the settings anymore. :( oh well

Minoc 06-18-2004 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loriel
What kind of standard?

128x128 is just common on many boards. :x
Quote:

Originally Posted by galen
You guys are going to have to convince Unixmad to make any chagnes. I can't make any board setting modifications because of some admin panel restrictions or something. I can't even see the settings anymore. :( oh well

Galen, since you're one of the few that could actually contact unixmad.. >_<

Dach 06-20-2004 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minoc
Hardly, since the text is loaded first.

slows me down nonetheless, order doesn't matter to a bad connection

Milkdude99 06-20-2004 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minoc
128x128 is just common on many boards. :x

Galen, since you're one of the few that could actually contact unixmad.. >_<

What Boards? , it's a avatar not a Billboard sign. :rolleyes:

Spark910 06-20-2004 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Milkdude99
What Boards? , it's a avatar not a Billboard sign. :rolleyes:

Well on these forums it would be okay, considering the left frame of the table is so big anyway.

GoZelda 06-20-2004 09:58 PM

What do we need avatars for anyway? We got sigs already.

Myomoto 06-20-2004 10:36 PM

They are fine as they are, no need to lag people up with giant avatars ;O

Scott 06-20-2004 10:40 PM

Nay. I dislike seeing huge avatars, because most of them are bloody ugly. No need for your fashion statements.

Projectshifter 06-20-2004 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Myukoi
Me too, and remove the whole 10 letters thing.

I still have no idea what this 10 letter thing is?
-Projectshifter

Scott 06-20-2004 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Projectshifter
I still have no idea what this 10 letter thing is?
-Projectshifter

It's about as annoying as you putting "-Projectshifter" at the end of all your posts.

The "Ten character limit" is a feature with vBulletin that prevents users from posting messages under the length of 10 characters.

nonis 06-20-2004 10:51 PM

i agree =D

Rufus 06-20-2004 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott
The "Ten character limit" is a feature with vBulletin that prevents users from posting messages under the length of 10 characters.

..which reduces spam and people pointing just to raise their post count. I do think the avatar size should be revised but I don't think the 10 character post should be.

Scott 06-20-2004 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rufus
..which reduces spam and people pointing just to raise their post count.

Thanks Captain Obvious.

Damix2 06-20-2004 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott
Thanks Captain Obvious.


aftershock =(

Scott 06-20-2004 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damix2
aftershock =(

Internet =(

Raelyn 06-21-2004 01:10 AM

Actually the filesize is what hurts. :\ There is no way I'll get this avatar down to 19kb. x_x :

Goboom 06-21-2004 01:44 AM

Pixelation uses 100x100, and it works just fine.
BTW PS...NICE Avatar. ;)

Trevor 06-21-2004 02:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goboom
Pixelation uses 100x100, and it works just fine.
BTW PS...NICE Avatar. ;)

It works fine because everyone on pixelation has *good* avatars. All the ones, well most anyways, suck.

Thought 06-21-2004 02:51 AM

If you increase size limits, decrease file limit.

Minoc 06-21-2004 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raelyn
Actually the filesize is what hurts. :\ There is no way I'll get this avatar down to 19kb. x_x :

Getting a 40kb file hosted isn't that complicated.

Geno 06-21-2004 07:03 PM

aye bigger avatar = more love

Raelyn 06-24-2004 10:56 PM

No, the problem is, I put it on ftp, and it won't let me make a link to the avatar even on my ftp, it still says the file is too big. :\

Scott 06-24-2004 10:57 PM

It's fine the way is.

Raelyn 06-24-2004 11:10 PM

I wasted my time making it specifically to fit in the avatar portion of the page, not the sig portion, if I knew it wouldn't fit in the avatar part I prolly woulda made a banner or something. :p

Scott 06-24-2004 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raelyn
I wasted my time making it specifically to fit in the avatar portion of the page, not the sig portion, if I knew it wouldn't fit in the avatar part I prolly woulda made a banner or something. :p

ONOES WORLD COMES 2 ENDZ.

Trevor 06-25-2004 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raelyn
No, the problem is, I put it on ftp, and it won't let me make a link to the avatar even on my ftp, it still says the file is too big. :\

You are not understanding what the avatar selector is doing. It actually goes out and feteches the image from the URL that you specify. Then it saves it to the server's hard disk.

It is *not* just linking to the URL.

Raelyn 06-25-2004 01:39 AM

Yes, but it allows it to fit in signature, so why not just put it in the avatar spot instead? It's under 65x65, so if it's going to be on my sig already, what's the difference? :p

Trevor 06-25-2004 02:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raelyn
Yes, but it allows it to fit in signature, so why not just put it in the avatar spot instead? It's under 65x65, so if it's going to be on my sig already, what's the difference? :p

Because it is loading from your server when it is in your signature. Not Graal's.

Go read up on bandwidth.


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 11:25 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright (C) 1998-2019 Toonslab All Rights Reserved.