LMan: Well that's a compromise!

... now I'm an old pixel graphic man from the AMIGA days, and I'm a hell of a perfectionist when it comes to these topics

... I just had this picture in my mind that it would look more "straight" with a width that match the ranking graphics... that was the main concern I had... The height was mainly because it's impossible to fit a large number of avatars in a square field... Most portraits of things and people look much better with this added height. Unfortunately, with a hight of just 90, it would make it worse in a way because most avatars are portraits, and frantically, a portrait format IS higher than it's wide. So even if it's a compromise, it'll not solve anything in my point of view, but to make the "cropping" problem even worse. It would be more helpful to keep the current width, and instead increase the height then in my point of view. The point for me is, that if you take a normal digital camera, it seem to default to this aspect ratio.
I've checked, and a 120*160 avatar compressed to jpg at compression ratio 20, fill approx. 6-7kb, so you could safely put the size limit down to 8-10kb.
Here are 6 avatars I've done in 120*160... all fit in 6-7kb:
