Lightning Posted April 13, 2004 Share Posted April 13, 2004 can we increase the avatar size to 80x80? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLoneWolf Posted April 13, 2004 Share Posted April 13, 2004 I wouldn't mind larger avatars either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mechamaniac Posted April 13, 2004 Share Posted April 13, 2004 Yeah, it wouldn't be bad. I think Shawn likes to keep it small for the dial up users out there though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent ONE Posted April 13, 2004 Share Posted April 13, 2004 Shawn can increase the pixel-by-pixel dimentions while still keeping the kb requirement the same. Max and I have discussed this already... Unfortunately if Shawn doesn't make this decision it isn't a conversation worth having. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaine23 Posted April 13, 2004 Share Posted April 13, 2004 (edited) I love that idea.... hopefully it'll happen. You can do quite a bit of image under 40kb. But for heaven's sake, please don't allow pics in sigs. It's one thing I absolutely despise on other boards.... there's nothing more obnoxious than having to scroll past some dude's custom "I'm an Autobot called Rambone the Indignant" 70 times in one thread. Edited April 13, 2004 by Blaine23 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bsu legato Posted April 13, 2004 Share Posted April 13, 2004 But for heaven's sake, please don't allow pics in sigs. It's one thing I absolutely despise on other boards.... there's nothing more obnoxious than having to scroll past some dude's custom "I'm an Autobot called Rambone the Indignant" 70 times in one thread. No kidding. I absolutely loathe obnoxious picture sigs, whether it some video game kiddie's "i r teh cool sniper" sig, or a thousand pictures of somebody's car. pics in sig = punch to the groin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightbat Posted April 13, 2004 Share Posted April 13, 2004 all in all, I've yet to see a 64*64 Avatar I can't recognize Avatars give enough recognition to the users as they are now (BTW- to the Mods, I at first wanted to quote BSU's post but noticed just in time I hit the "report"button) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaine23 Posted April 13, 2004 Share Posted April 13, 2004 all in all, I've yet to see a 64*64 Avatar I can't recognizeAvatars give enough recognition to the users as they are now (BTW- to the Mods, I at first wanted to quote BSU's post but noticed just in time I hit the "report"button) I'm so going to report you for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EXO Posted April 13, 2004 Share Posted April 13, 2004 Any bigger and you'll be able to see that I'm not wearing any pants... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent ONE Posted April 13, 2004 Share Posted April 13, 2004 I'd love to be able to see more of myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightning Posted April 14, 2004 Author Share Posted April 14, 2004 now dont get me wrong, i was just meaning about the avatars, i dont really want any pics in sigs on this site either, it would kinda make it less fun if u ask me... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angel's Fury Posted April 14, 2004 Share Posted April 14, 2004 Avatars in 80x80= Great Idea!!! Pics in signatures=punch to the groin and a headbutt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yohsho Posted April 14, 2004 Share Posted April 14, 2004 Avatars @ 80x80 Fine by me, mine are at 60x60 I think. Pics in sigs... Anyone who does that should be ... well something really nasty happen to them. Wish Cancer on them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Jenius Posted April 14, 2004 Share Posted April 14, 2004 Yeah, I thought folks would be able to handle pics in sigs... but after looking at some other boards where peoples' pics are larger than the majority of their posts... well changed my mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mechamaniac Posted April 14, 2004 Share Posted April 14, 2004 I'd love to be able to see more of myself. That tears it, we need to go back to the old board settings, what were they? They were smaller for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLoneWolf Posted April 16, 2004 Share Posted April 16, 2004 I'd love to be able to see more of myself. That tears it, we need to go back to the old board settings, what were they? They were smaller for sure. Bite yer tongue! The old 32x32 limit still gives me nightmares. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Togo Posted April 16, 2004 Share Posted April 16, 2004 I like it how it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mechamaniac Posted April 16, 2004 Share Posted April 16, 2004 I'd love to be able to see more of myself. That tears it, we need to go back to the old board settings, what were they? They were smaller for sure. Bite yer tongue! The old 32x32 limit still gives me nightmares. Do you really want to see Agent's homoerotic Lebatar at 80 x 80 ???? If so, then maybe we need to get you a little pink parasol and you can sachet your pretty little self around the town square. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anubis Posted April 16, 2004 Share Posted April 16, 2004 (edited) I saw one pic in a sig somewhere that was a whole MB, with the actial sig saying "Die 56k'ers". I fear what would happen here if we had pics in sigs. Not having them makes the board SO much easier to read. Wise choice not to allow them. Not to mention the bandwidth savings. Either 64x64 or 80x80 avatars is fine with me. I would have to redo some of my avatars, yeah, but some avatars can be hard to tell the fine details at 64x64. If it goes to 80x80, the KB limit could stay where it is now, like was said above. Edited April 16, 2004 by Anubis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent ONE Posted April 16, 2004 Share Posted April 16, 2004 Do you really want to see Agent's homoerotic Lebatar at 80 x 80 ???? If so, then maybe we need to get you a little pink parasol and you can sachet your pretty little self around the town square. First of all my av isn't homoerotic... only the biatches be enjoyin the 'Agent ONE machine of perfection' you see in my avatar. Now, if avatars go to 80 x 80 I promise I will do a different avatar because I agree my muscles would just be scary if the pic were bigger... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angel's Fury Posted April 16, 2004 Share Posted April 16, 2004 That's what I call "self-gratification". Well, if you love yourself that much.......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myriad Posted April 17, 2004 Share Posted April 17, 2004 Bigger avatar pics would be cool! Smaller mouth on quite a few MW Fanboys would be better! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichterX Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 Bigger avatars, yes do it, do it... do it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the white drew carey Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 Personally, I don't see the need for larger avatars. If you can't fit it in the space provided, then you don't need it as an avatar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Togo Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 Personally, I don't see the need for larger avatars. If you can't fit it in the space provided, then you don't need it as an avatar. Exactly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaine23 Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 (edited) Personally, I don't see the need for larger avatars. If you can't fit it in the space provided, then you don't need it as an avatar. There's not really alot of logic there, Drewby... you kinda come off like a dad - "You'll have nothing and like it, Spaulding!" If the avatar settings were 10x10 pixels one could say the exact same thing. Hey, if you can't make an av out of this, then you don't need it... now pick a block shape and be happy with it! AgentONE simply pointed out that there is a lot of wasted space in the area to the left of the posting field and we could use that space for bigger avs - without allowing anymore bandwidth. I don't see where any negative aspects are in that scenario, other than personal tastes (ie - it's bigger than 64x64... my eyes! the horror!)... Edited April 21, 2004 by Blaine23 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bsu legato Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 Bigger = Better* *within reason, of course. No need for 600x600 avatars, is there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the white drew carey Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 There's not really alot of logic there, Drewby... you kinda come off like a dad - "You'll have nothing and like it, Spaulding!" If the avatar settings were 10x10 pixels one could say the exact same thing. Hey, if you can't make an av out of this, then you don't need it... now pick a block shape and be happy with it! AgentONE simply pointed out that there is a lot of wasted space in the area to the left of the posting field and we could use that space for bigger avs - without allowing anymore bandwidth. I don't see where any negative aspects are in that scenario, other than personal tastes (ie - it's bigger than 64x64... my eyes! the horror!)... Not very logical, yes. But straight-forward? Even more so. My point was simply that the avatars are fine how they are. There's really not much that can be done in the extra 16 or a so pixels on up and over that will make an 80x80 avatar that much better. What it all really comes down to is whether or not it's something that the Admins can just flick a switch for? If it's that easy, go for it, and I too shall reap the benefits. But if it's any way time-consuming (and I'm talking 5+ minutes here) then it's really not worth the trouble, IMHO. Geez, do you REALLY want to see A1's man-boob's that badly!?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfunk Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 Bigger = Better**within reason, of course. No need for 600x600 avatars, is there? yup, anyone telling ya diferently is trying to make you feel better Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eriku Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 I vote for 80X80. Chiaki demands more space. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent ONE Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 ...Geez, do you REALLY want to see A1's man-boob's that badly!?! Would you prefer a croch shot!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaine23 Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 There's not really alot of logic there, Drewby... you kinda come off like a dad - "You'll have nothing and like it, Spaulding!" If the avatar settings were 10x10 pixels one could say the exact same thing. Hey, if you can't make an av out of this, then you don't need it... now pick a block shape and be happy with it! AgentONE simply pointed out that there is a lot of wasted space in the area to the left of the posting field and we could use that space for bigger avs - without allowing anymore bandwidth. I don't see where any negative aspects are in that scenario, other than personal tastes (ie - it's bigger than 64x64... my eyes! the horror!)... Not very logical, yes. But straight-forward? Even more so. My point was simply that the avatars are fine how they are. There's really not much that can be done in the extra 16 or a so pixels on up and over that will make an 80x80 avatar that much better. What it all really comes down to is whether or not it's something that the Admins can just flick a switch for? If it's that easy, go for it, and I too shall reap the benefits. But if it's any way time-consuming (and I'm talking 5+ minutes here) then it's really not worth the trouble, IMHO. Geez, do you REALLY want to see A1's man-boob's that badly!?! Jeez... the next thing you'll being saying "no" and I'll be all like, "why?" and you'll be all like "because I said so!" It's a new world, old man! We're not gonna sit around and use your old 64 square avatars... we're the pepsi generation, dammit! It seems you are in the "why" party and I'm of the "why not?" faction here... And AgentONE's desire to flash all of Macrossworld is merely an unfortunate side-effect of progression. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichterX Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 ... do it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myriad Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 What is worse man boobs, croch shots or pictures of people trying to look like celebrities........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renegadeleader1 Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 What is worse man boobs, croch shots or pictures of people trying to look like celebrities........ How about panty shots? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.