The Foundry: Problems & Solutions

[natty dread]

Tacktix, great posts all along.

I agree with every single piece of text you have posted here so far. Lots of things you've said I've tried to say myself, but you've just managed to say everything so much better... I'm just no good with words (I can't wait until mankind develops telepathic communication...)

In short, bravo!

[Riskismy]

One thing that is unspoken code is that there are no officially rejected ideas. I don't think we've ever formalized it ANYWHERE, not even in private forums, it's just what's always been done. We may speak in disparaging terms about plasagna, pencil maps, and someone asking why Star Wars' Death Star Trench Run hasn't become an objective map yet (I don't think anyone's actually suggested that, but if we could do SW that'd be a killer one), but aside from the hard and fast rule "if it's copyrighted you must have the permission of the copyright holder," there are no hard "no"s. So the "rejected ideas" forum is a total no-go.

Semantics. Call it 'postponed' or whatever else seems appropriate.

Off of that tangent and onto the single point of entry. Yes it'll make it easier for newcomers to know "you post here first" regardless, but it'll become an annoyance for people who post a full draft right off the bat. And most maps on CC are made by people who have made more than one map. Yes I know cairnswk breaks the pot with 28 maps, but there are several others who have more than one map to their credit. Adding what amounts to unnecessary tedium to them is a bad idea.

Natty made this argument, and my reply to him was that a little annoyance (and it would be tiny - they would simply have to wait a day or two to be moved to the drafting room!), from the regular mapmakers is a more than fair price to pay for the newcomers clarity.
The 'unncessary tedium' is not a bad idea when it adds clarity and structure to the process.

Honestly, I think you should read my last post again, where I explain the changes to the forum structure. Though the suggestion started as a call to merge the ideas and draft fora, it doesn't anymore. Quite the contrary, in fact, as it would separate them even more than they are today.

We could communicate more obviously the requirement of something being graphical to be posted in the Drafting Room. That's the only major difference between the two. If you're only going to post some text, go to Map Ideas. If you've got an image that looks like we could roll some dice over, then it goes to Drafting. Revising the wording of each forum to clearly reflect that can be done. But it's just not going to fly to re-integrate the two.

I think those are very important distinctions. I hope you include them in upcoming information.

I say this from experience: gameplay and graphics inform each other far more than it seems at first glance. There were several cases when developing R&C where I had to say "sorry, the gameplay we want to do will not fit on this size map, we need to do something else." If I didn't have a graphical draft I was improving, it would've gone unnoticed. Then we'd show up in Graphics Workshop and ironically find out that we needed to change the gameplay to accommodate the fact that the graphics couldn't correspond to it. And while it seems like it'll be multiple comment disorder and various other psychological issues, it's really not.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have graphical representations of the maps at an early stage. I agree that we should, and it should include the legend, army numbers and all that jazz.
I'm saying that as long as the gameplay is clear, the rest is irrevelant quibbling which only serves to frustrate the mapmaker and slow down the process. It doesn't matter at all that how this visual representation came about, whether by hand or Paint or some uber proffesional tool - all that matters is that the gameplay is clear and, as you say, the rules can fit on the map.

There have been many times where something I decided to do graphically for glitz reasons made the gameplay better, either by making the map easier to read or changing the structure of a part of it.

If you simply made the map easier to read, you didn't improve gameplay.
If you changed the structure of the map, you did change the gameplay. But I posit that this wasn't a result of actually adding graphics, but rather the graphics was changed to accomodate changes in gameplay. Quite different scenarios, and I don't believe for a second that adding graphics changed the gameplay. That you thought of the gameplay changes while you were working on graphics does not go to show, that you need moderately developed graphics for understanding gameplay.

We actually have this already. Ask -=- Tanarri -=- and Carlpgoodrich about Research & Conquer. They've been avidly following and commenting on the map since shortly after it came into existence over two years ago. It's the people who find a map they love and comment on it that provide us our perspective. I've seen several cases where a long-time follower explained to a CA why "x" is so before the mapmaker could even reply. Sure, they don't have blue on their name. They're just as valuable and they add the perspective you're asking for.

Point taken.

Thanks again for this debate. I'm sorry If I'm a bit short tonight, but I had a long day

[natty dread]

Semantics. Call it 'postponed' or whatever else seems appropriate.

It's not semantics... What Tacktix is trying to say, I believe, is that what you suggest to do is just not done. Maps are not rejected, and calling it "postponing" won't change the fact that that's what would be taking place.

Maps survive or fall on their own merit, the Foundry is not in the business of rejecting them. The Foundry is, after all, a peer-review system.

Natty made this argument, and my reply to him was that a little annoyance (and it would be tiny - they would simply have to wait a day or two to be moved to the drafting room!), from the regular mapmakers is a more than fair price to pay for the newcomers clarity.

Similarly, I could argue that the small amount of confusion to a small part of newcomers is a more than fair price to pay for the convenience of the regular mapmakers. After all, it's the regular mapmakers that make the most work here. Very few of the newbies ever become productive members of the Foundry - most give up when they find out it's not as easy as they imagined.

I'm saying that as long as the gameplay is clear, the rest is irrevelant quibbling which only serves to frustrate the mapmaker and slow down the process. It doesn't matter at all that how this visual representation came about, whether by hand or Paint or some uber proffesional tool - all that matters is that the gameplay is clear and, as you say, the rules can fit on the map.

We all hear you, you've said it several times now. And I'm saying you are mistaken. Regular mapmakers, who know something about how the process works, are not getting frustrated about things like these. Some new mapmakers, like yourself, do, but that's mostly because they have some misconceptions about mapmaking.

The thing is, it is not the same to just do a visual sketch on a pencil and call it a working draft. In the gameplay part, maps are expected to have a visual layout of the map. That means that most of the graphical elements are in place at this point, at least in some form.

You keep saying that this is extra work for the mapmaker. But it's not. Really, it's not. It's actually helpful to do things this way as you (and the commentators) get to see the whole picture while the map is developing. Also, with the graphics softwares that need to be used for mapmaking, which operate on layered images, making changes to the gameplay even when you have most of the graphics made is not a big deal. Sure, some things may seem like they would be hard to do, but if you utilize layers properly, there won't be any extra work, and once you get more experience with graphics editing, things will go a lot faster than they do in the beginning.

If you simply made the map easier to read, you didn't improve gameplay.

You are again mistaken. Gameplay is not just how the map is coded. Gameplay clarity is part of gameplay. The arrangement of territories, intuitiveness of the layout, it all affects the gameplay experience the player gets from a map.

[TaCktiX]

Semantics. Call it 'postponed' or whatever else seems appropriate.

Natty already handled this one, but I'm going to echo: semantics is still breaking the unwritten rule. We get accused of enough bias already, officially rejecting (no matter what pretty word you put on it) will fan fires that would put a California blaze to shame.

Natty made this argument, and my reply to him was that a little annoyance (and it would be tiny - they would simply have to wait a day or two to be moved to the drafting room!), from the regular mapmakers is a more than fair price to pay for the newcomers clarity.
The 'unncessary tedium' is not a bad idea when it adds clarity and structure to the process.

We can add clarity and structure to the process by changing some text so that the purposes of the two forums is clear. Ideas informs the possibilities of anything in the Drafting Room. It's raw creativity where the Foundry is all about refining that creativity into something fun and balanced to play. Even the most skeleton draft inherently has less creativity than the Ideas forum. Stripping that soul away for the sake of saying "and everything starts here, period" sounds like killing the goose that laid the golden eggs.

While it may be true that some drafts (and indeed, quenched maps) started in Ideas as just a post by somebody, the vast majority of the forum isn't. And now that I've thought about it, that's the way it should be.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have graphical representations of the maps at an early stage. I agree that we should, and it should include the legend, army numbers and all that jazz.
I'm saying that as long as the gameplay is clear, the rest is irrevelant quibbling which only serves to frustrate the mapmaker and slow down the process. It doesn't matter at all that how this visual representation came about, whether by hand or Paint or some uber proffesional tool - all that matters is that the gameplay is clear and, as you say, the rules can fit on the map.

I know you didn't say that. What I was saying is that without theme, gameplay, and graphics simultaneously being worked on, the map will end up backtracking AT LEAST once. It's not a "that's how it might work for you" situation. That's fact, with numerous supporting examples sitting in the Viewing Gallery (ask Tisha about her first map on CC, or perhaps hit me on PM for why The Citadel still needed graphical work despite almost nothing about the original gameplay changing except bonus values and a few connections). And backtracking is the exact opposite of the "clarified and simple process" that you're championing.

The reason the gameplay stamp happens before the graphics stamp is this backtracking chicken-and-egg situation. If graphics WAS able to be given before, there's the high potential that the look is good to go but plagued by several flaws in the gameplay, leading the mapmaker to have to change the graphics to fix the gameplay, nulling the point of having the graphics stamp in the first place, as it has to be re-evaluated. However if the gameplay is determined to be balanced, it's a simple matter of sprucing up the graphics.

Natty cited one of the major reasons why something more high-powered than Paint or your handy flat-bed scanner is required: ease of editing (lord knows I love my layers: R&C has over 1700). Ask The Bison King how much of a headache it is to make edits to his maps once he has a full-quality watercolor up. But an even simpler reason is this: CC expects a level of quality that can only practically be gained by using GIMP, Photoshop, or the like. We as the Foundry must deliver to CC that which it expects, and sadly we've spoiled them rotten on good-looking and good-playing maps for years now. Yes, you could potentially make a map using Paint, but it would take you exponentially longer than someone with lesser graphical talent using Photoshop. We require it both for quality and for convenience to the mapmaker.

If you simply made the map easier to read, you didn't improve gameplay.
If you changed the structure of the map, you did change the gameplay. But I posit that this wasn't a result of actually adding graphics, but rather the graphics was changed to accomodate changes in gameplay. Quite different scenarios, and I don't believe for a second that adding graphics changed the gameplay. That you thought of the gameplay changes while you were working on graphics does not go to show, that you need moderately developed graphics for understanding gameplay.

Natty already covered the first comment, but I'll expand on it. You're right, making the map easier to read does not improve the absolute gameplay quality of the map, not one bit. But no one really cares about the absolute quality, particularly the discriminating CC player confronted with over 160 choices of where his next game should be. They care about the relative quality, the perceived capability to take the map, apply some strategy, and turn it into victory. The more obtuse and hard to understand a map is, the lower its relative quality, and consequently the lower its actual appeal to CC. As stated above, it's our job to deliver to greater CC new and interesting things to play. Heck, we get complaints about maps that went through the process just fine and were STILL considered too difficult to understand by some (Third Crusade, Waterloo being prime suspects).

You really should believe me when I say that adding graphics changed the gameplay of R&C significantly. For comparison, here's the gameplay schematic done by Oliver before I posted a first draft: (link). Now compare that to my first graphical anything: (link). Not a thing alike, as I couldn't fit Oliver's gameplay onto the map and still have it be Research & Conquer. The approach didn't go over well, so in the process of making things look good, the territory gameplay changed again into this: (link). Majorly factoring in the entire time was fitting enough map on with the requirements to include a Research component. I'll admit that it looks simple in retrospect and likely could've been done with some wireframes, but it would have been far more hit-and-miss than the 4 iterations it took to get Draft 1.0 on board. For reference, very little about the territories has changed, even with the map sitting at Final Forge right now.

To address your assertion that you don't need moderately developed graphics for understanding gameplay, you're right. But that's not the point. Take into consideration everything else I've just said and you should see the bigger picture that a map is greater than the sum of its parts (those parts being theme, gameplay, and graphics). Cutting back or cutting out any one of the parts until a "set time" is do-able, but it makes the entire map suffer, both in time taken to quench and in number of changes that need to be made.

[Riskismy]

Well, you two are still both misunderstanding me and going out on wild tangents. I'm not gonna reply tonight though, as I need to get some food in my belly before it's time to hit the sheets. But fear not! I'll be back!

[natty dread]

Well, you two are still both misunderstanding me and going out on wild tangents.

We understand you, we just don't agree with you. There's a difference.

Me & Tacktix have both responded to all of your points, explained the reasons why things are as they are, yet you claim we are going on "tangents", which to me suggests that it is actually you who is not understanding what we are saying.

[natty dread]

Look, Riskismy... it's not that your ideas are bad, per se. Well, not all of them, anyway. For the record, I had lots of very similar ideas when I first came to the Foundry. It's more that your ideas are either infeasible, or misguided due to lack of practical experience of mapmaking. This is probably going to sound elitistic, and I'm sorry if it offends you, but guys like Tacktix simply know better than you, because of all the practical mapmaking experience they have.

You refuse to accept that for a new mapmaker, the Foundry is a learning experience. A lot of stuff can be learned beforehand, like graphics work, or gameplay dynamics, or stuff like that, but some things are things that everyone has to learn - things particular to the Foundry process. The learning can go smoothly, or it can be rough, but everyone has to go through it, in some form, everyone always has something they need to learn. No one has ever just walked in and instantly become a master mapmaker.

The Foundry is a collective, born from the combined efforts of all the Cartographers (mods), mapmakers, XML smiths, commentators, and one curious monkey who stops by now and then. The process of the Foundry is ever evolving and shifting according to the needs of this collective. If you really want to make a difference in it, you have to stop being the guy who stomps in and starts yelling "you are all doing it wrong!" and become a part of this community.

Hope you don't interpret my comments as antagonistic. I see potential in you, and I'd hate to see that potential wasted.

[Riskismy]

Though I consider your comments more condescending than elitist, I do appreciate the sentiment. Thank you.

Like I said, I'm not done with this, but it'll have to wait. I need to not think too much tonight, and I'm going away for the weekend.
Expect a reply in full early next week.

[MrBenn]

/head explodes

We're working on rewriting the foundry guides to help make the process clearer (although most of the current guides still stand) and bring them all together in a single place.

I know that the foundry has some nuances, but I've lost track of what specificly you have a problem with, and what you think the solution to it is...

[Riskismy]

I'm sorry for the (very) late reply. I tried to get around to it a couple of evenings, but all the other threads took forever to go through. Now that I'm all caught up, however, I'm ready for another bout.

I've read the last round of exchanges back, and I'm gonna drop quoting you guys in order to get very clear about my argument. If I seem to repeat what I've already said, it's because I'm still not sure you're clear on what I'm getting at, and in order to accommodate MrBenn.

I'm left with one over-all concern, which is the ease with which new mapmakers can start the process of going through the foundry. Aside from the over-all clarity of the process (criteria determining when a map is ready to move to the next step (e.g. draft to gameplay)), which I will not be addressing further, I find there's room for improvement in one specific area: The point of entry.

natty points out that very few people who come by the foundry and start a map actually stick around and finish it. I can see for myself that this is certainly true, but I don't agree that it's all due to the difficulty of learning graphics. That's probably the major reason, but I think there's a lot of contributing factors, some of which can be fairly easily addressed and one of them is the entry point.

As it stands, new mapmakers will enter the foundry forum and look at the forums there. It won't take long before they decide to enter the drafting room (though we could make it easier on them even here). Now they're in the drafting room and has to decide where to put their idea, whether it has a map to accompany it or not. This is where I feel we could make some changes to help them out, because it's not at all clear where it belongs in either case. In the time I've been frequenting these fora, I've seen more maps moved from Draft to Idea than the other way around, and I think that says a lot about the clarity of the current structure.

My specific proposal is to promote the ideas forum up one level alongside the Drafting room, graphics etc., and make it impossible to post new threads in the drafting room. The Drafts forum would be 'just' another step on the road like graphics and XML fora.
Now I've said this before, so to make it perfectly clear what I'm talking about, I've fired up Paint and done up some stunning visual aides:

The new Foundry forum, top level:

Click image to enlarge.

Note:
- The Ideas forum is promoted to sit above drafting room and has been clearly marked as the starting point. No one would doubt where to go for a second.
- New text for the drafting room. This just a 'for instance'. The important part is that it's clear the the drafting room comes after the ideas forum.

Ok, then. So now the would-be mapmaker enters the Ideas forum:

Click image to enlarge.

Note:
- The Dead Projects sub-forum is here now, and they won't be any more or less rejected than they are currently!
- The official announcements are here as well, and so is the sticky thread about having good ideas. They obviously both belong where the newbe enters the process.

Finally, the new drafting room forum should look much like the other steps along the way:

Click image to enlarge.

Of course, there should probably be some announcement as to what is expected of the mapmaker in this forum, but in order to clarify the process this forum should be treated as any of the other forums along the way, where only mods can move them along.

I think this structure has clear advantages over the current:

- A single entry point. This is less confusing to newcomers and will reduce the administration of moving maps to and fro.
- Clear, visual representation of the progression of the map. It's right there on the main foundry forum, from top to bottom.
- Enforces a process that is already in place.

The only drawback that have been argued is that the experienced mapmakers will have to post in the ideas forum first; something to do with the administration of moving the map from ideas to draft, I believe. As the time to make that move is a matter of a few seconds, involving little more than picking an entry from a dropdown selector, I consider it a more than fair trade for the clarity of the proposed structure, as well as saving the enthusiastic newcomer the let-down of having his map demoted for not containing graphics.

These changes to the forum structure does not involve any changes in the process and does not require any significant time to implement, while, in my opinion, making 'everything' much more clear to the newcomer. I simply do not comprehend your resistance to it, and I hope you'll explain it to me.

[natty dread]

Riskismy, this issue has already been addressed in earlier posts by both me and Tacktix.

There is no sense in forcing everyone to post in the melting pot just because everyone doesn't know the difference. Sure, there has been what, maybe 2 or 3 threads during the last 2 weeks that have had to be moved from the drafting room. So what? It's much less work for the foundry mods than having to move every single draft to the drafting room, like under your proposal. It would also be much more frustrating to the mapmakers who know their way around the foundry.

Your proposal rewards ignorance and punishes those who know how the foundry works.

[Riskismy]

Yes, you've addressed it, but inadequately so - just like now

There is no sense in forcing everyone to post in the melting pot just because everyone doesn't know the difference.

Yes, there is sense in it. As I said above, it lends structure and clarity to a process already in place.

Sure, there has been what, maybe 2 or 3 threads during the last 2 weeks that have had to be moved from the drafting room. So what?

So what? It shows that people who are new to the place are confused about the process.

It's much less work for the foundry mods than having to move every single draft to the drafting room, like under your proposal.

Not much less, but somewhat less, yes - I already pointed this out when I explained that this is the only valid counter-argument I've heard on the issue. The time spend doing this really is absolutely insignificant. I know, I've used this forum software myself.

It would also be much more frustrating to the mapmakers who know their way around the foundry.

More frustrating than the current? I don't think that's true, but even if it is, it doesn't matter to those who know their way around because, well, they know their way around - and I sure as hell know that they aren't prone to frustration in the first place.
They know that they'll be moved along when the time is right, and they'll just keep working on their map like they always do.
It's really of no consequence at all to experienced map makers.

Your proposal rewards ignorance and punishes those who know how the foundry works.

heh. That's one way of seeing it. I fail to see the punishment involved though - how does it hurt you, for example?
And what you call 'rewarding ignorance' is like saying your tutorial is rewarding ignorance. Do you think helping people along is rewarding their ignorance?

[natty dread]

It's really of no consequence at all to experienced map makers.

This experienced mapmaker begs to differ.

And what you call 'rewarding ignorance' is like saying your tutorial is rewarding ignorance. Do you think helping people along is rewarding their ignorance?

Teaching a man to fish is better than apples & oranges.

[Riskismy]

This experienced mapmaker begs to differ.

You're certainly allowed to differ, but you'll have to argue it for it to matter.

Teaching a man to fish is better than apples & oranges.

I don't know what that means.

[owenshooter]

I recently had a hizzy-fit here.
Though I admit I used language that isn't warranted by the situation, it was largely due to the condescending attitude and insults by natty_dread, and I think I have valid concerns. I've been asked to post them here, and I'll try to make them clear in the following.

i don't know why you bother. no matter how many times it is brought to the attention of the foundry regulars that there is a condescending air about here, that makes it rather unpleasant to venture in here, nothing changes. there was a huge discussion in the GD about this that was flowing quite well... it was moved over to the foundry and the eyeball views dropped, and nothing changed. you are wasting your time. everyone in here is unable or unwilling to see the problem, so it goes on and on and on. even when regular members try to help resolve the problems to make the Foundry a place some of the older members would actually care to visit and put forth ideas. you, my friend, are don quixote... good luck, this is more than an uphill struggle...-the black jesus

p.s.-remember when it was first brought to the attention of Foundry regulars that the low visits were due to the poor attitudes in here, and the solution was to move it up the forum list to increase traffic... same as it ever was... same as it ever was...

[natty dread]

Owen, it seems you have some bitter experiences from the foundry. I haven't seen you in here in the time I have been here, so those experiences are probably from the earlier times - the youth, if you will - of the foundry. I would like to think that the current foundry atmosphere, at least, is not "elitistic" or "condescending" at all. We strive to at least listen to all opinions and points of view.

I would welcome you to come visit the current foundry with an open mind, and maybe offer your feedback on some maps. I think you might be pleasantly surprised!

You're certainly allowed to differ, but you'll have to argue it for it to matter.

You said that the change would be "inconsequential to experienced mapmakers". Well, at least 2 experienced mapmakers have told you they would not consider the change inconsequential.

I have also already given my reasons for it. You disagree with them, as you have the right to do. However, I would appreciate if you would actually consider those reasons, instead of dismissing them outright as inadequate.

I don't know what that means.

This experienced mapmaker begs to differ.

You're certainly allowed to differ, but you'll have to argue it for it to matter.

Teaching a man to fish is better than apples & oranges.

I don't know what that means.

Oops, sorry. I seem to have accidentally amalgamated my metaphors there.

What I meant was, that comparing my mapmaking tutorial to your proposal is like comparing apples and oranges, as my tutorial is teaching people how to learn to do things themselves, instead of doing things for them. In other words, teaching a poor man to fish is better than giving the man a fish to eat.

Again, I have to stress that the foundry is a learning experience for any new mapmaker. If you are confused about the forums at the beginning, that confusion is not long-lived, since you will learn the proper place to post after your first thread. That small amount of confusion for a small portion of "newbies" is a fair price to pay for things running more smoothly for the regular foundrygoers.

And the foundry actually does a lot to accommodate new people. We have tutorials, help threads, and several people giving a lot of their time to help new guys learn the ropes.

[Riskismy]

i don't know why you bother.

Hi owenshooter, and thanks for the sympathy. It actually means a great deal to me.

I've asked that question myself a few times already, and having arrived at nothing satisfactory, I guess I must admit I simply take morbid pleasure from taking apart arguments from the likes of natty.
I have no problems admitting when I'm wrong, which is good because I often am. But personalities like natty, when they perceive their status challenged or threatened, will often hold on to their arguments, however infeasible, until they have to resort to name calling and insults. I simply can't resist the temptation, I must admit.

Now don't get me wrong, I actually kinda like natty and I'm prepared to accept that I have certain misconceptions about him. Despite our disagreements, I at least respect his contribution to CC and his knowledge of mapmaking. I agree with you, owen, that often the first feedback a newcomer will get is... shall we call it 'less than welcoming', and often that feedback is natty's. Apparently this goes back to before natty got here, but I think he may well have taken a clue from his forebears. While I take his feedback to be accurate and knowledgeable, I often find it dismissing and condescending as well. Certainly he could word his posts in a more positive way and still give the same feedback.

hm. Well, I'm tired and a little riled up, so I guess this turned out to be not as much an answer to owen as it is a plea to natty. I apologise and will move back on topic.

You said that the change would be "inconsequential to experienced mapmakers". Well, at least 2 experienced mapmakers have told you they would not consider the change inconsequential.

True. However, they have both failed to point out those inconsequentialities. In fact, they've hardly even tried.
I simply don't trust you enough to just let you get away with "That's my expert opinion". Tell me, what are these horrible, insufferable consequences?

I have also already given my reasons for it. You disagree with them, as you have the right to do. However, I would appreciate if you would actually consider those reasons, instead of dismissing them outright as inadequate.

Like I said in my last major post, and just now above here, I have noticed no such reasons. I would thank you to point them out to me.

What I meant was, that comparing my mapmaking tutorial to your proposal is like comparing apples and oranges, as my tutorial is teaching people how to learn to do things themselves, instead of doing things for them.

We wouldn't be doing anything for them in this sense (i.e. going out to catch their fish). We would simply be providing them with a clear structure to the process. Yes indeed, helping them to catch their own fish.

Again, I have to stress that the foundry is a learning experience for any new mapmaker. If you are confused about the forums at the beginning, that confusion is not long-lived, since you will learn the proper place to post after your first thread. That small amount of confusion for a small portion of "newbies" is a fair price to pay for things running more smoothly for the regular foundrygoers.

Why would you resist a change that lessens that confusion. Mapmaking is hard and confusing, but there's no point in making it more so than necessary.
Things would be running at least as smoothly as they do now, as the regulars are not impeded in any way. They are free to work on any and all aspects of their map as they are now. They will simple have to wait a day or two before moving into the drafting forum. A move you yourself have pointed out is merely a formality - a more or less abstract matter of how far the map has progressed.
I repeat: There are simply no consequences for the regulars.

[isaiah40]

Riskismy, as stated before, the foundry/forum guidelines are in the process of being discussed and revised to make it clearer. MrBenn has given me the go ahead to update them, and as RL takes precedence over my CC time it is taking awhile to compile and discuss, change, discuss some more and so on. I have enlisted a couple of others to help me with this endeavor, so hopefully this will speed things up. I had discussed this with MrBenn long before all of this started, so it has been in the works for awhile now.

Though I personally think your idea of putting the Ideas subforum ahead of the Drafting Room has some merit, that decision is not up to me to make. We are discussing these things so please be patient as we get through this. These things do not and can not change over night as we are all volunteers who have real life responsibilities, like paying bills, you know things in real life that cannot be put off.

[natty dread]

I guess I must admit I simply take morbid pleasure from taking apart arguments from the likes of natty.

How very telling. I can now see this discussion is going to lead nowhere constructive. Hence, this will be my last post on this thread.

I have no problems admitting when I'm wrong, which is good because I often am. But personalities like natty, when they perceive their status challenged or threatened, will often hold on to their arguments, however infeasible, until they have to resort to name calling and insults.

Point to me to one single time I have called you names or insulted you, please. If you have nothing to contribute other than spurious accusations and projection, I don't see us finding any common ground here.

I agree with you, owen, that often the first feedback a newcomer will get is... shall we call it 'less than welcoming', and often that feedback is natty's.

We give mapmakers, new and old alike, honest feedback and constructive criticism. I have never, ever told someone his work "sucks" without giving some advice on how to fix it, or if it's unfixable, pointed him to advice on coming up with more feasible ideas. If you're looking for a place that will validate your every ego-bloating excursion to modern art, go buy your mom some more refridgerator magnets. If you're looking to get actual feedback and honest criticism so you can grow as an artist, designer and a mapmaker, then come to the foundry.

True. However, they have both failed to point out those inconsequentialities. In fact, they've hardly even tried.
I simply don't trust you enough to just let you get away with "That's my expert opinion". Tell me, what are these horrible, insufferable consequences?

Like I said in my last major post, and just now above here, I have noticed no such reasons. I would thank you to point them out to me.

Like I said, these things have been addressed. For example here:

There is no sense in forcing everyone to post in the melting pot just because everyone doesn't know the difference. Sure, there has been what, maybe 2 or 3 threads during the last 2 weeks that have had to be moved from the drafting room. So what? It's much less work for the foundry mods than having to move every single draft to the drafting room, like under your proposal. It would also be much more frustrating to the mapmakers who know their way around the foundry.

Your proposal rewards ignorance and punishes those who know how the foundry works.

We can add clarity and structure to the process by changing some text so that the purposes of the two forums is clear. Ideas informs the possibilities of anything in the Drafting Room. It's raw creativity where the Foundry is all about refining that creativity into something fun and balanced to play. Even the most skeleton draft inherently has less creativity than the Ideas forum. Stripping that soul away for the sake of saying "and everything starts here, period" sounds like killing the goose that laid the golden eggs.

While it may be true that some drafts (and indeed, quenched maps) started in Ideas as just a post by somebody, the vast majority of the forum isn't. And now that I've thought about it, that's the way it should be.

[Riskismy]

How very telling. I can now see this discussion is going to lead nowhere constructive. Hence, this will be my last post on this thread.

It is telling, was meant to be. It doesn't tell that the discussion isn't constructive, though. Even if no changes come of it, it has still been constructive, inasmuch as I at least have gained significant insights into how the foundry works.

What *i* find telling, is that now that you've run out of arguments, you yell 'Unconstructive!' and refuse to post. How's that for unconstructive

Point to me to one single time I have called you names or insulted you, please. If you have nothing to contribute other than spurious accusations and projection, I don't see us finding any common ground here.

That would be funny if I wasn't certain you're actually serious, monkey turd. If that doesn't ring a bell, check the 2nd quote down.

We give mapmakers, new and old alike, honest feedback and constructive criticism. I have never, ever told someone his work "sucks" without giving some advice on how to fix it, or if it's unfixable, pointed him to advice on coming up with more feasible ideas.

You're lying again natty. Simple, recent proof
Clearly this was unfixable in your mind, so where's the feedback for a feasible idea?
You have a hard time hearing yourself speak. I think you mean well, but you have difficulties making the effort that comes with that intention.

If you're looking for a place that will validate your every ego-bloating excursion to modern art, go buy your mom some more refridgerator magnets. If you're looking to get actual feedback and honest criticism so you can grow as an artist, designer and a mapmaker, then come to the foundry.

Can you hear yourself yet?

Like I said, these things have been addressed. For example here:

I wrote:

There is no sense in forcing everyone to post in the melting pot just because everyone doesn't know the difference. Sure, there has been what, maybe 2 or 3 threads during the last 2 weeks that have had to be moved from the drafting room. So what? It's much less work for the foundry mods than having to move every single draft to the drafting room, like under your proposal. It would also be much more frustrating to the mapmakers who know their way around the foundry.

Your proposal rewards ignorance and punishes those who know how the foundry works.

Tacktix wrote:

We can add clarity and structure to the process by changing some text so that the purposes of the two forums is clear. Ideas informs the possibilities of anything in the Drafting Room. It's raw creativity where the Foundry is all about refining that creativity into something fun and balanced to play. Even the most skeleton draft inherently has less creativity than the Ideas forum. Stripping that soul away for the sake of saying "and everything starts here, period" sounds like killing the goose that laid the golden eggs.

While it may be true that some drafts (and indeed, quenched maps) started in Ideas as just a post by somebody, the vast majority of the forum isn't. And now that I've thought about it, that's the way it should be.

I refuted that quote of yours, and now, as a rebuttal, you simply quote yourself again?!
Well done natty, you've reached new heights in obfuscating the topic and running loops.

As for Tacktix's argument, I'll skip the beginning and end as they don't even come close to addressing these purported inconveniences that regular map makers would experiences as a result of my proposed changes.

Even the most skeleton draft inherently has less creativity than the Ideas forum. Stripping that soul away for the sake of saying "and everything starts here, period" sounds like killing the goose that laid the golden eggs.

There would be no stripping away of anything but the ability to post in the draft forum. Ideas are equally creative whether they're posted in an idea forum that sits next to the draft forum, or an idea forum that sits below the draft forum. To think otherwise is quite frankly stupid. I'm sorry Tacktix, maybe natty quoted you out of context here, but I have to reply within the current context.

Still, not a single argument has been presented to show how
a) The changes would not benefit clarity and structure of the process, or
b) The changes will hinder or otherwise be detriment to regular map makers.

Riskismy, as stated before, the foundry/forum guidelines are in the process of being discussed and revised to make it clearer. MrBenn has given me the go ahead to update them, and as RL takes precedence over my CC time it is taking awhile to compile and discuss, change, discuss some more and so on. I have enlisted a couple of others to help me with this endeavor, so hopefully this will speed things up. I had discussed this with MrBenn long before all of this started, so it has been in the works for awhile now.

Though I personally think your idea of putting the Ideas subforum ahead of the Drafting Room has some merit, that decision is not up to me to make. We are discussing these things so please be patient as we get through this. These things do not and can not change over night as we are all volunteers who have real life responsibilities, like paying bills, you know things in real life that cannot be put off.

Sorry to quote you out of order here, but I'd like to finish on a positive note.
I'll admit to being impatient, but not to voicing that impatience!
In Danish we have a pseudo-saying: "Ting ta'r tid", which literally translates to 'Things Take Time". I understand you need time, and I applaud the decision to to do it thoroughly and with forethought.

Thanks for the support of the idea. I'm very happy to see that the some people can see that newcomers can have good suggestions. I had a bit more to brown-nosing to do, but now pizza has arrived!

Thanks again!

[TaCktiX]

I stated this in private, but it suits for public as well.

Essentially, we are at an impasse. You have practically no evidence save your own opinion to support your ideas, and neither I nor any other experienced mapmaker has evidence enough to prove the reverse. In essence, there is no "win" here for either side. We're arguing over brass tacks and I think it's a phenomenal waste of time for everyone. We're going to make things clearer (as isaiah has posted), but since it's uncertain whether your suggestion will have any effect at all other than additional moderator hassle I doubt there will be a move to everything starting in the Ideas forum. As long as we clear up the confusion that forum descriptions, guides, and the like have caused, that's the best we can do. It's the internet, someone will always get confused by something, no matter how clear.

[Riskismy]

You're quite simply wrong.

It's not a matter of opinion at all: Having a single point of entry leaves NO room for confusion, which is inarguably better than some confusion, however slight. Newcomers will still be confused over this or that, but not over where to post.

My proposed change to the forum structure will clearly reduce confusion as well. I've done up some more stunning visual aides. IF these cannot explain to you how it would benefit the clarity of the process, nothing will.

This is the initial process we have now:

Click image to enlarge.

Not too shabby, but this is how it could look:

Click image to enlarge.

Now, to be fair, there is the oh-so time-consuming move to the drafting room, so here is perhaps a more fair representation:

Click image to enlarge.

Perhaps this is also where I can yet again point out that either the Ideas or the Drafting room is superfluous? Without one or the other, the middle process up there would be the actual process, no unnecessary moving of map projects from one forum to the other. As you regulars have pointed out time and time again, there's really no difference between the work done in these two, indeed, in most of the forums.

Hope this clears things up for you guys. It's really is a matter of fact, not opinion.