New Classic Competition?

[edbeard]

last time.

I have been to your map thread, right after your first post about it, i feel it should be discussed here if this is your idea for a new classic map. And i know it is your map, one. that. you. created. I am just saying that your map would change the classic gameplay,that is all, i don't think you understand me so lets just leave it at that

I. am. talking. about. my. own. map. which. is. a. different. one. from. classic.

I. just. thought. it. might. be. a. good. idea. to. change. the. direction. of. my. map. now. that. the. old. classic. image. is. all. but. gone.

notice. how. I. mentioned. my. own. map. and. its. own. thread. shame. on. me. for. trying. to. get. people. to. go. there. and. discuss. that.

[mpjh]

The latest addition to the classic map series gave me an idea, probably already posted by 10 others, but here goes. I suggest that we have a large series of classic maps with the same underlying game play. For Example:

Political classic with different political isms for each continent, i.e., capitalism, Marxism, pacifism, anarchy, despotism, etc. Each sub territory could be famous proponents of each ism.

Galaxy classic with different galaxies for each continent, with important planets for sub territory.

Gender classic with different twists on gender for each continent, 'nuf said.

Political party classic with different political parties for each continent, i.e., greens, republican, democrat, libertarians, socialist, etc., again with famous proponents.

There are probably at least 10 different maps using the same underlying game that would be interesting.

Maybe a bad idea???

[jiminski]

The latest addition to the classic map series gave me an idea, probably already posted by 10 others, but here goes. I suggest that we have a large series of classic maps with the same underlying game play. For Example:

Political classic with different political isms for each continent, i.e., capitalism, Marxism, pacifism, anarchy, despotism, etc. Each sub territory could be famous proponents of each ism.

Galaxy classic with different galaxies for each continent, with important planets for sub territory.

Gender classic with different twists on gender for each continent, 'nuf said.

Political party classic with different political parties for each continent, i.e., greens, republican, democrat, libertarians, socialist, etc., again with famous proponents.

There are probably at least 10 different maps using the same underlying game that would be interesting.

Maybe a bad idea???

it is a nice idea in theory. Kaplowitz had a similar idea using a variety of skins a couple of months ago viewtopic.php?f=6&t=58077&st=0&sk=t&sd=a and Oak reiterated it in this very thread:

How would the skins work? Would it be possible for people playing in the same game to see different maps? Or would the maps be separate and distinct entities?

My thinking - and this is just something I'm pulling out of my large hippo ass - is that there would be more than one classic on the map select page... the first row could show "Classic: Europe" next to "Classic: Space" next to "Classic: Atlantis" or whatever we come up with. You start a game in Atlantis, you play in Atlantis.

btw, for the record I'm not trying to be a hater. It just seems like this whole thing has come along at the worst possible time vis-a-vis the health of the foundry.

Would there ever be a good time? At least the foundry wasn't responsible for this change... but it has been pretty dead around here as of late. Maybe this will liven things up.

I also don't think mibi's idea of a classic map "star chamber" is a bad idea.

Agreed. Right now all options are on the table.

[delahoc]

The new classic can't be of World continents, so wouldn't tracing the Classic map be pointless???

Yes, it can be the world, and it can have the same world continents. No one can claim ownership of the layout of the continents, nor of representing that in a graphic. The only claim can be in the combinations (map + territories + names + gameplay) that are uniquely Risk.

So a sufficiently different world map should be fine. Again, all of this (in fact all of this thread) is purely conjecture until we are told what is acceptable and what isn't - as I first said right at the start.

no... this is incorrect.

From a purely copyright law point of view, it's perfectly correct. Keep the layout of the continents, that's no problem. Some changes perhaps to the division of territories will probably be necessary, and some changes to the territory names may be needed. But a map of the world with the geographically correct continental layout CAN NEVER BE CLAIMED AS OWNED.

Of course, none of us can know for certain what's needed until we get the criteria that the new map must fit.

[mpjh]

I suggest leaving the legal constraints to lack and crew. However, as to playability for a map, or customer satisfaction, I think a trial of a number of different classic maps, maybe up to 10, is the best way to find one or several that players really like. I suggest keeping the basic underlying structure and play mode as the current two classics, but overlay a variety of skins. Several members have suggested this and I think it deserves closer attention.

[delahoc]

However, as to playability for a map, or customer satisfaction, I think a trial of a number of different classic maps, maybe up to 10, is the best way to find one or several that players really like. I suggest keeping the basic underlying structure and play mode as the current two classics, but overlay a variety of skins. Several members have suggested this and I think it deserves closer attention.

I thoroughly agree with most of that. We need something appealing and graphic as soon as possible. And yes, trailling a few of them sounds like a good, democratic way of doing that. I still see no reason why the basis of that shouldn't be a world map.

Oh, and just btw - I have actually lectured in copyright law, so I know a little of what I'm talking about.

[oaktown]

I suggest leaving the legal constraints to lack and crew.

Smartest thing anybody has said in this thread... thanks mpj' (if I may call you mpj').

The biggest down side to developing more and more classic maps is that it takes time away from developing original maps. It generally takes about three months to make a map... some a bit faster, many a bit longer. Most of the maps are made by a handful of mapmakers... well, most of the maps are made by cairnswk, but there are half a dozen folks around here that are consistently active. To develop ten good "classic" maps means the most active mapmakers are tied up for three to six months doing nothing but making more attractive versions of a map you can already play. I'd rather do something new.

[mpjh]

I guess it all depends on what will build the site the most, and that takes a statistical analysis of the relative popularity of the various maps as well as marketing analysis of what attracts new members the most. I am guessing that the classic was a real attractor, and a burst of creativity to that format could really pay off.

[jiminski]

I suggest leaving the legal constraints to lack and crew.

Smartest thing anybody has said in this thread... thanks mpj' (if I may call you mpj').

The biggest down side to developing more and more classic maps is that it takes time away from developing original maps. It generally takes about three months to make a map... some a bit faster, many a bit longer. Most of the maps are made by a handful of mapmakers... well, most of the maps are made by cairnswk, but there are half a dozen folks around here that are consistently active. To develop ten good "classic" maps means the most active mapmakers are tied up for three to six months doing nothing but making more attractive versions of a map you can already play. I'd rather do something new.

so you are saying the foundry refuses to hold a competition and the cheap replacements we have now are because the classic replacement is of no interest to it?
And that the legal constraints are not the key factor?

Now i do not think that is the whole problem (though after comments like that i am not so sure of anything!)

I wish you guys would consider your words a little better in this delicate time, can you do that for me please Oaks?
how the words of an official figure are interpreted leads to conflicting perceptions.. and as there is a complete information blackout, off-the-cuff remarks like your post above causes friction and conflict. It adds to the rumour-mill as it is all we have!

And I am not even going to mention the fact that 90% of the site only frigging care about the classic map! (oops I mentioned it)
it is only an esoteric band of genius's who think as you (and I) do about the great and innovative maps in here!... what people want is for the foundry to invest time and talent into the classic as was done with the best result in Brazil!
Your saying the above about it being a waste of time and resources, is just not helpful man! It ignores the feelings of the core custom base here.

Now for that reason this has to be more about legalities and not the whim of the foundry, if you really add it up .. but please man, think!

[mpjh]

get over it

[Juan_Bottom]

My 2 cents:

Um... duh? Now that we have a second version of the classic map... that lack has approved....

Does that not mean that we have an awesome idea of what we can get away with? Just copy that template, without copying the original classic and Wallah!: You have yourself a contest.

[jiminski]

get over it

you talking to me fella?
if so .. i am not under anything.
i am simply advising common-sense from those who people are looking to for leadership. now please don;t try to stir it up as usual mp.

[jiminski]

My 2 cents:

Um... duh? Now that we have a second version of the classic map... that lack has approved....

Does that not mean that we have an awesome idea of what we can get away with? Just copy that template, without copying the original classic and Wallah!: You have yourself a contest.

no mate, the point is that is the final article.

[mpjh]

No it is not.

get with it

[jiminski]

No it is not.

get with it

really, where did you hear that? can you direct me to that post which says a competition is coming please?

[mpjh]

ask the hippo

[jiminski]

ask the hippo

so you know nothing then .. and are just stirring it up?


anyway .. i want the best for the site, and i believe this is a practically impossible situation for Lack in legal terms.. with that in mind i am advising a more careful tac when discussing what the foundry does and does not want to do.

now stop trying to stir it up with no real knowledge or point me in its direction .. i would be genuinely thrilled with a competition and have been pushing for it in many areas.

[mpjh]

I told you to ask the hippo. She has much more information than I do. Otherwise kma.

[jiminski]

I told you to ask the hippo. She has much more information than I do. Otherwise kma.

"kma"? what does that mean?

[Frop]

I told you to ask the hippo. She has much more information than I do. Otherwise kma.

"kma"? what does that mean?

He's telling you he's an ass and he wants you to kiss him.

[Juan_Bottom]

My 2 cents:

Um... duh? Now that we have a second version of the classic map... that lack has approved....

Does that not mean that we have an awesome idea of what we can get away with? Just copy that template, without copying the original classic and Wallah!: You have yourself a contest.

no mate, the point is that is the final article.

Wait, What did I miss exactly? Did Lack have to get that other map approved by Hasbro first or something?

[mpjh]

No, Juan. The legal stuff is being held close by lack, which is the correct strategy. We should keep clear of worrying about whether any particular map is "legal." However, given the constraints of the basic game play, it appears we have a great deal of flixibility for the overlay map or whatever. It ain't over yet. Some are arguing for a world map type overlay, others, like me, are arguing for 5 to 10 different overlays.

[Juan_Bottom]

No, Juan. The legal stuff is being held close by lack, which is the correct strategy. We should keep clear of worrying about whether any particular map is "legal." However, given the constraints of the basic game play, it appears we have a great deal of flixibility for the overlay map or whatever. It ain't over yet. Some are arguing for a world map type overlay, others, like me, are arguing for 5 to 10 different overlays.

That's exactly what I thought I was saying... If the "shapes map" and "art map" are ok to use, then why can't we make others?

[mpjh]

We can and many are pushing for that to happen. The excuse given right now is that it takes 6 months per map -- not.

[oaktown]

anyway .. i want the best for the site, and i believe this is a practically impossible situation for Lack in legal terms.. with that in mind i am advising a more careful tac when discussing what the foundry does and does not want to do.

thank you for this comment jiminski. Only the folks at the top know exactly what's going on, and I for one am willing to let them sort this mess out. Despite what others may think, Lack also wants what is best for this site; in fact, his livelihood depends on it.

As for my words, I have been very careful about what I've said. I stand by everything wrote here yesterday...

As for a competition, I think we should put a big Foundry [vacation] tag on that idea. Like chanchao said, the requirements for a new map are not clear. My fellow CAs and I would, of course, like the site to have a Classic map that makes everybody happy, and perhaps a day will come when we can help make that happen. Today is not that day.

My comment about the workload of the Foundry was directly related to mpjh's suggestion that the Foundry make ten more "classic" maps. That is what we were discussing at that point in the thread, and I think that if you'll re-read my post in that light, you'll judge it less harshly. I floated the idea a few days ago so I think it's a fun idea, but I wanted to point out that it would mean tying up the Foundry talent for the next few months. And no, mpjh, I wasn't using that as an excuse for why we aren't making new maps, I was just making the point.

That so many of us take the map changes so personally shows how much people appreciate the site. As somebody who is here primarily to play the game, I don't think I'm alone in feeling a sense a disappointment and frustration right now. But it hasn't even been a week, so I'm not willing to end my membership just yet.