a brief collection of notes on recent cartography

[oaktown]

well if you consider that something near to 90% of the maps in there end up being abandoned or not quenched for whatever reason then i think that point is probably felt quite keenly for good reason

This is a lousy argument for not participating. The foundry has taken some good steps toward making this less of an issue, the most relevant being the three stage process. If you want to ignore the crap that will never be made, stay out of the map ideas subforums, where bad projects die early deaths. 90% of the 90% you write of never make it to the foundry proper.

But if you stay out of the ideas subforum, you also have no right to complain if a map you like never gets out of the subforum. See my point? If you don't participate in the process, the process may not work the way you'd like it to. And it's unproductive to complain about a process, as Kugelblitz so eloquently did when he said "the map foundry sucks," and not present some kind of alternative.

summary for this bit: the argument isnt one of tradition standing in the way of progress and new maps arent disliked simply by virtue of being new. great lakes is original, innovative and immensely playable as well as looking the biz.

I teach elementary school. One thing we teach is how to tell a fact from an opinion. What you have presented is your opinion, and while your opinion is not wrong, you should keep in mind that others may not share your opinion. There are many different people with many different opinions in the world, and we tend to gravitate toward people with opinions similar to ours, and to avoid the people with opinions that differ greatly from our own.

I observe that you like a certain kind of map: straightforward game play, no gimmicks. Other people may not agree with you and may want to see different kinds of maps on the site. DiM, or Cairns for example. I suggest you seek out the mapmakers who have opinions similar to your own and support their projects: Japan, for example. That way you will ensure that at least some - though no all - of the future projects will be maps that you will like to play.

[yeti_c]

well if you consider that something near to 90% of the maps in there end up being abandoned or not quenched for whatever reason then i think that point is probably felt quite keenly for good reason

This is a lousy argument for not participating. The foundry has taken some good steps toward making this less of an issue, the most relevant being the three stage process. If you want to ignore the crap that will never be made, stay out of the map ideas subforums, where bad projects die early deaths. 90% of the 90% you write of never make it to the foundry proper.

But if you stay out of the ideas subforum, you also have no right to complain if a map you like never gets out of the subforum. See my point? If you don't participate in the process, the process may not work the way you'd like it to. And it's unproductive to complain about a process, as Kugelblitz so eloquently did when he said "the map foundry sucks," and not present some kind of alternative.

This is a very good point... and as ever very well and eloquently made...

One thing I'd like to point out is often people post in Map threads..

"This Sucks" or "Hate the Borders" or "Ouch my eyes"

These may be valid points -> but a better point would be similar to these...

"This Sucks - because if someone starts with the dave territory then they will always win"

"Hate the borders - they are a bit pixelly and need to be smoothed out - or perhaps make them less dark"

"Ouch my eyes - some of the colours are a bit bright - would you be able turn down the brightness of the George continent"

C.

[khazalid]

well, lets face it - it wasnt my point was it?



"I teach elementary school. One thing we teach is how to tell a fact from an opinion. What you have presented is your opinion, and while your opinion is not wrong, you should keep in mind that others may not share your opinion. There are many different people with many different opinions in the world, and we tend to gravitate toward people with opinions similar to ours, and to avoid the people with opinions that differ greatly from our own. "


what i have presented is not my opinion, but the opinion of a great many players, especially those playing at a higher level, whose opinions are being routinely ignored for one reason or another

[DiM]

earlier today i responded in a thread about maps with gimmicks. so below are my reasons for creating maps that have a different gameplay than the classic recipe. i believe i have pretty good reasons so read below.

no problem. i know AoM isn't and it's never gonna be the kind of map that pleases everybody. it has it's own fans.


i made it for people just like me. people that have been playing Risk for 10+ years and are really bored with the same classic thing. i play risk with my friends on a weekly basis but to be honest we haven't played the classic board game in 3 or 4 months. we play AoM all the time. also the original risk style gameplay has been out of our agenda for more than 3 years. yeah we played on the classic map because that's all we had but we played all kinds of variations like nuclear risk, paranoia risk, alien risk and stuff like that. heck we even invented our own variations. risk is a great game but it can be boring after a while. that's why i love all kinds of gimmicks and stuff. something to spice up the game and break the routine.

btw i hope Age of Realms gets quenched in 1-2 weeks. my advice is to stay away from it. it's gonna be one spiced up cookie

btw, indeed lately more and more gimmicky maps are beginning to appear but if you look at all the maps you'll see that the classic style has still the most maps.

now i'm gonna read the rest of the thread cause i never got past the first post

[Hatchman]

My hat goes off to the people creating these maps. They are something to behold visually/artistically.

That said, from the perspective of someone who plays mostly escalating (singles), I'd say the newer crop of maps have too many gimmicks and too many "easy" bonuses (like cities). My personal preference is for maps with straightforward bonus areas (usually a handful of contiguous countries), as well as the odd barrier (e.g. The Rocky Mountains on the Canada map), and several dead ends (e.g. Newfoundland on the Canada map).

Still, it's always exciting when new maps come out. The more the better, so that there is a lot of variety to suit many tastes.

Can't wait for Malta!

PS: Sorry if that last comment shows my cultural bias.

[khazalid]

dim, although i dont personally play on AoM i think it was one hell of an achievement and i take your point regarding being bored with 'classic' style risk. although there are still a majority of traditional game boards, they will very quickly be dwarfed if trends continue as they have been. it almost appears as if you think anything without some newfangled bonus scheme or rule deviation is superfluous these days? seemingly too there is something of a backslapping culture in the foundry along these lines, with kudos being given proportionally to wackiness.

[yeti_c]

dim, although i dont personally play on AoM i think it was one hell of an achievement and i take your point regarding being bored with 'classic' style risk. although there are still a majority of traditional game boards, they will very quickly be dwarfed if trends continue as they have been. it almost appears as if you think anything without some newfangled bonus scheme or rule deviation is superfluous these days? seemingly too there is something of a backslapping culture in the foundry along these lines, with kudos being given proportionally to wackiness.

I disagree on that point...

If you'll check some of the new Quenches there have been some standard maps created too...

Also there are a number of standard maps in the Final Forge status - which means they are very close to being released...

C.

[DiM]

so much to answer to and so little time. so i'll be brief:

i think Cairns WK is a pimp

of course there's another side of the coin: some of the newer maps do lack in some areas. gameplay, creativity, visuals, etc. but that is okay. not every map that comes out is going to be tops. and we can't blame the great mapmakers for the flaws in lesser maps.

i think you're wrong here. i don't think the maps lack anything. if they did they wouldn't be quenched.

yes some people won't like some maps that's normal. i don't like honey in my tea but my wife does. is she wrong? am i wrong? no, it's just a matter of taste.

99% of new players expect risk and slight variations in maps when they join. However some maps like merchants brings the actual name and game of risk to the farthest limits. I know that I showed a friend of mine some maps and when he saw chinese checkers he was disappointed and when he saw pearl harbor he was confused. Some say that isn't risk. They don't know that its conquerclub, a completely different game.

the new players have 50+ maps to chose from. most of them are classic style maps suited for beginners. the rest are for people that feel bored with classic and want a different challenge. saying that it's a whole different game because it has some stranger continents is wrong. i advise you to google: "risk variations" you'll find some really interesting game variations that have been around for many years. i have played most of them and liked them and when i joined this site i was actually surprised to see there's no nuclear risk no paranoia risk no alien risk and one of my first posts was a suggestion to implement them. seeing it's not possible i took the matter in my own hands learned fireworks and photoshop and produced AoM. that's called involvement in the process. if you don't like something then either ask for it or do it yourself.

I used to be looking forward any new map to come out. I was one of the first one to try them. Not anymore. Some of new ones are quite obscure and not interested. Here is the short, not full list of the issues i find.

1. Graphics.
1.a. I personally prefer nice crisp lines. I understand that having satelite image projected onto the map sounds like great FUN... at first... at the second look, all those little houses, etc, are distracting you during the game. New Canada map is the example of it.
1.b. Font selection. Quite often I find fonts to be very unreadable. For example: Midkemia and to the lesser extent AoM. There was 1 more map, but I cannot remember which one. Fonts preferred must be simple San Serif or Serif group, not written letters, which are tough to read.
1.c Color Selections. Map designers must make sure that their color do no clash with armies colors, and be nice and pleasant for eye. Berlin map is not that...
1.d. Maps being too busy and overloaded with the graphical details. Again new Canada map, upcoming madness map.
2. Playability.
2.a All those bombardments are not adding much playability-wise. What was achieved with the myriads of bombardments in the Pearl Harbor map? Or in Omaha Beach. I still cannot figure out what u can or cannot bombard in the Omaha Beach...
2.b. Every map needs to have its essence. Which can be chock points, or critical holdings etc. In the Battle of Actium there is no such thing. Everything can attack pretty much everything... Millions of possible pathways. Boring, very not interesting.
2.c. Battle of Australia. Why all middle part of map is always neutral? Is there a need for so much of it? How often do they actually get conquered during the game play? And if not often, why are there at all then?
2.d. Continent bonuses. In order to make a map, suited to play risk in no cards games, you have to make sure that bonuses are relevant and are feasible to hold. In Battle of Actium, all the continents are huge. Very tough to play no cards.
2.e. Some maps are plain obscure: Omaha Beach, Rail USA, Pearl Harbor, Bamboo Jack. Last map is not a map, but some kind of treasure hunting manuscript. There are more words there when countries names.

if all map makers started doing what you want i think we would just have 100 classic maps that would differ very slightly from one another. don't you think that would be a bit boring?

A friend of mine on here decided to get involved in the map making process for the first time, he asked for my imput but after my previous experience I was slow to but I and some others that had never previously visited the foundry came along and commented on the map - what was the outcome ? (a torrent of abuse led by DiM which was in effect a "stay out, this is private property message")

a torrent of abuse. my god one would think i went all flame forum on him and cursed and acted like an idiot.

fact is i was the one that provided the most feedback for that map. i was the one that even took my time and designed a whole new style for that map to make it more appealing. yes i said the map is stupid and i still stick to that. yes i said the map is flawed regarding the gameplay and it has bad graphics. yes i said the initial poll was flawed by that guy asking friends to vote for him.

and what happened after that? more people became aware of the graphic and gameplay flaws and commented, the graphics haven't improved and as far as the first poll that got more than 100 bogus votes let's look at the second one that got only 20. a more real representation of the interest on that map. not to mention that the map soon died and all the initial supporters vanished. and to top everything the map has been recently abandoned. i'm probably not the most diplomatic person and i may sound a bit (more) blunt but i'm usually right about things. and regarding that map i was right.

dim, although i dont personally play on AoM i think it was one hell of an achievement and i take your point regarding being bored with 'classic' style risk. although there are still a majority of traditional game boards, they will very quickly be dwarfed if trends continue as they have been. it almost appears as if you think anything without some newfangled bonus scheme or rule deviation is superfluous these days? seemingly too there is something of a backslapping culture in the foundry along these lines, with kudos being given proportionally to wackiness.

actually classic style maps are still being produced and will be produced forever. don't worry about that.

and yes i think that producing a classic map is a waste of time. for me not for others. why is that? simple. i want to do maps that I will enjoy. i will never make a map that i don't enjoy. i've said it many times and i'll say it again i won't do a map of a normal country and i won't do a map with classic gameplay simply because i won't enjoy it. and if you don't enjoy something you create then that creation will be crap. you have to get involved to really be productive.

[cairnswk]

so much written since i went to sleep that i cant even recollect it all to respond.

the point about the foundry being insular however, is pertinent to say the least. if you ask around you will find this is a common (and not misplaced) opinion. i do venture in sometimes but that place is cliquey as hell, no denying it. that is the single biggest factor in determining the limited amount of feedback you get from the community, in my opinion.

khazalid...thanks for responding and your opinion again....but if you've ventured in here, then i certainly don't recall seeing your name in any of my map topics.
and i just did some research...here is a list of your attendance in the map foundry apart from this topic....
6 Soviet Union
1 Pangea Ultima
2 Future World Empires
1 Doodle Earth
5 Hyrule Map
1 USApoc
1 Vomit Map
1 Conquer Club Park
Total 18 out of 656 posts. Most of your time is spent in Flame Wars, GD, Suggestions & Bugs, and Callouts. And from what i read in your posts summary there is almost no mention of the map foundry or maps that are quenched.

pearl harbour is one of the new maps which i feel is probably best representative of the sentiments previously expressed. it is messy, with attack routes and lines everywhere, the bonuses are severely messed up, especially with the planes, it is practically unplayable on escalating settings there are so many blocking territories everywhere and on the whole far more attention is paid to the 'gimmicky' stuff going on in it than actual issues of substance and gameplay.

this i will contrast with another newish map - great lakes. great lakes has some interesting features, the + for lakes bonus system, the one way territories at interesting intervals, the preponderance of 2 bonus continents. this is to say that not everything needs to be classic v.2 - evolution of maps is fine, so long as it adds to rather than detracts from gameplay. on top of this, its is a very nice looking map, crisp and unconfusing, no colour issues etc.

oh dear. i just checked through the games you've played.....you've had one game on pearl harbor and that one you lost.
But you've had several games on Cairns Coral Coast....i wonder why this is? Is it because CCC is similar to the standard risk style of play?
The bonuses for PH are calculated exactly the same way as other maps have their bonuses done, the aircraft have been commented on as being over-bonused, and the bombardments as i stated earlier, you can take or leave.

and I've never played Great Lakes....coz i don't like all the flags in the background, but that is simply a personal choice.

so i guess what i am saying here is some maps do it for me, others don't.
some people very much like pearl harbour, others don't and some complained about the bonuses and then come back and said don't change them, they're good for the play.

Not everyone likes everything that you like and vicky verka.

As oaktown placed it well above....because we all have different opinions not everyone has the same opinion, and sometimes we tend to radiate to people who have the same opinion.

what i have presented is not my opinion, but the opinion of a great many players, especially those playing at a higher level, whose opinions are being routinely ignored for one reason or another

if this is the opinion of higher level players, then they are welcome to bring their opinions also into the foundry to express them as you have done.

Thanks once again for your input, and i look forward to seeing much more of you in here for your comments on the maps in future.
You're most welcome.

BTW....you'll probably like Bamboo Jack coz that's standard style risk play, and you'll prob even like Madness and Waterloo when that comes out...but stay away from Gazala coz that's full of attack lines like PH.

[bloknayrb]

I think it's really great that some people from outside the foundry are starting to realize the foundry exists (I'm one of them ), but I have to say that I don't really see any point for anyone to ever make standard maps in exactly the same style as the original RISK map. The gameplay is largely unchanged from one to the next, and each one might as well be any other, especially if you're demanding simplicity.

I'm not putting down the effort that goes into making them, which is of course equal to the effort that goes into making any other kind of map, but I just don't understand the people who seem to crave new standard-style maps.

This is not to say I don't like playing on different standard gameplay maps, I like them a lot, but I don't feel there's any lack.

<shameless plug>Look at my map. Comment.</shameless plug>

[Coleman]

As well known as I am for long tirades I'm going to be brief here.

I make what I feel like making, I don't think about anything else.

[oaktown]

what i have presented is not my opinion, but the opinion of a great many players, especially those playing at a higher level, whose opinions are being routinely ignored for one reason or another

Oh dear, you didn't get it. Opinion vs. fact. You have an opinion, and it is shared by others. I have an opinion and it is shared by others. Neither you nor I are wrong in our opinions, we just don't agree. You have a right to play the maps you like, and to help make the maps you like. So do I. It doesn't matter if I'm a captain or a noob, I have a right to that opinion.

Some maps will be made that I don't like, but I don't complain and try to make sure no other maps like it are ever made again. Why are you trying to impose your OPINION on all of the users at this site? Find the new maps that you like, encourage the production of new maps that you like, ignore the ones you don't.

[khazalid]

oh dear. i just checked through the games you've played.....you've had one game on pearl harbor and that one you lost.

- once was enough!

But you've had several games on Cairns Coral Coast....i wonder why this is? Is it because CCC is similar to the standard risk style of play?

well of course it is.. why else would it be?

The bonuses for PH are calculated exactly the same way as other maps have their bonuses done, the aircraft have been commented on as being over-bonused, and the bombardments as i stated earlier, you can take or leave.

and I've never played Great Lakes....coz i don't like all the flags in the background, but that is simply a personal choice.

so i guess what i am saying here is some maps do it for me, others don't.
some people very much like pearl harbour, others don't and some complained about the bonuses and then come back and said don't change them, they're good for the play.

Not everyone likes everything that you like and vicky verka.

As oaktown placed it well above....because we all have different opinions not everyone has the same opinion, and sometimes we tend to radiate to people who have the same opinion.

- i suppose we do. i mix mainly with other high ranked players and dont really take into account opinions when doing so. it just so happens that a very large majority of them/us feels exactly the same way about these new maps, and to me at least rank and skill equates to a more solidly grounded opinion on them. whether the foundry as a whole is actually willing to take this on board or not is another matter, im just calling it as i see it

[khazalid]

what i have presented is not my opinion, but the opinion of a great many players, especially those playing at a higher level, whose opinions are being routinely ignored for one reason or another

Oh dear, you didn't get it. Opinion vs. fact. You have an opinion, and it is shared by others. I have an opinion and it is shared by others. Neither you nor I are wrong in our opinions, we just don't agree. You have a right to play the maps you like, and to help make the maps you like. So do I. It doesn't matter if I'm a captain or a noob, I have a right to that opinion.

Some maps will be made that I don't like, but I don't complain and try to make sure no other maps like it are ever made again. Why are you trying to impose your OPINION on all of the users at this site? Find the new maps that you like, encourage the production of new maps that you like, ignore the ones you don't.

you attribute to me a few different points of ideology i dont possess. you can say 'its just opinion' about anything quite frankly, but if one hears that opinion echoed repeatedly by the best players on the site then it becomes something more, does it not? this will probably be my last post on the topic because it appears to be a largely fruitless pursuit - but please take into account what i have said on the matter because whether you like it or not it is substantive, pertinent and representative of a majority view

[oaktown]

you can say 'its just opinion' about anything quite frankly, but if one hears that opinion echoed repeatedly by the best players on the site then it becomes something more, does it not? this will probably be my last post on the topic because it appears to be a largely fruitless pursuit - but please take into account what i have said on the matter because whether you like it or not it is substantive, pertinent and representative of a majority view

Regardless of how many people share an opinion, it is still an opinion. I think George W. Bush isthe worst US president ever. That is my opinion. Millions of other people around the world, including some very intelligent and learned people, think he's the worst US president ever. Does that make it a fact? No, it makes it an opinion shared by many. Very, very many.

As a mapmaker I want to hear the opinions of the mob. If people want to play maps with gimmicks, I'll make maps with gimmicks. If people want straightforward attack and defend maps, that's what I'll make. Right now I'm making a small map; not because I play small maps, but because there was a thoughtful discussion here in the foundry last month about how we need another small map like Doodle. Ultimately I want to make maps that are going to be played, and i only know what that is if people talk about it.

However, there is also an audience for maps with greater complexity, and some mapmakers will cater to this. I believe that complex maps are and will always be outnumbered by classic-style maps, and if you look at the seven or eight maps that have been quenched in the past month this holds true. France, Italy, Portugal and even Midkemia are extremely straightforward in terms of game play.

If there is a movement in support of more classic-style maps, I can get behind that 100%. But this thread began as a movement against complex maps and against the users who make/support them, and that's just counterproductive.

[AndrewB]

I guess I just wasted all my time reading and writing all that.

I see, that there are no standards possible in the foundry, because otherwise

we would just have 100 classic maps

.

I see that my arguments were not answered:

I am well aware of the legibility issues with players

. What kind of answer it is? If you know the legibility issues with players why do you allow create and personally create maps where 3 continents are 3 different shades of purple (Bamboo Jack)?

That is why I DON"T want to waste my time on some stupid arguments which u can find in the Foundry.

You said it well:

if it is not to your liking...don't play it. Simple.

Just that I've started playing one Canada Map, which i really liked, and now I need to finish my games on completely different map.

Whatever. Eventually the time will do its deserved justice to every map. You cannot say anything against statistics. Hopefully by the time we will not be flooded with a zillion of "substandard" maps....

[cairnswk]

- i suppose we do. i mix mainly with other high ranked players and dont really take into account opinions when doing so. it just so happens that a very large majority of them/us feels exactly the same way about these new maps, and to me at least rank and skill equates to a more solidly grounded opinion on them. whether the foundry as a whole is actually willing to take this on board or not is another matter, im just calling it as i see it

well khazalid....i challenge those highly ranked players to present themselves here in the foundry and give us all feedback on these maps.
And if they don't want to give input, then get them in here to create some of the maps.
It is one thing to talk about it between yourselves and complain, but another entriely different matter to front up and give your opinion here in the foundry.
I welcome their input at any time, and for the most part you'll find myself very accommodating to your input as long as you don't expect that you'll get your own style or own way out of every map. Because i enjoy creating a variety of styles and having some gimmicks playable on some of my maps. And the foundry does not work on the say of just one person but rather on a democratic process of the majority, that is why we have polls etc.
again i thank you for you input.

[cairnswk]

I see that my arguments were not answered:

I am well aware of the legibility issues with players

. What kind of answer it is? If you know the legibility issues with players why do you allow create and personally create maps where 3 continents are 3 different shades of purple (Bamboo Jack)?

so is this a colour blind issue you have with this map....and why didn't you mention the four shades of green or all the varieties the of brown and oranges etc?

[DiM]

I guess I just wasted all my time reading and writing all that.

I see, that there are no standards possible in the foundry, because otherwise

we would just have 100 classic maps

no you haven't wasted your time you just stated your opinion. regarding the gameplay you don't want complicated maps and regarding the graphics you don't want anything that detaches from the classic riskboard style. if this is what you want then it means we would just have 100 classic maps. with absolutely no difference in gameplay and graphics. do you really want that? i certainly don't and i'm sure many people share my opinion. at the same time i'm sure that many people share your opinion too. that's exactly why you have the option of choosing what map you want to play. you have lots of classic maps to choose from and others will be produced. so why do you come and say gimmicky complicated maps should not be made? would you like it if i came and said no classic maps should be made? i don't think so. there are a lot of people on this site and here in the foundry we try to approach all of them be it by making a classic map or a gimmicky one with strange graphics. each map has its own fans and nobody can say anything against this.

Whatever. Eventually the time will do its deserved justice to every map. You cannot say anything against statistics. Hopefully by the time we will not be flooded with a zillion of "substandard" maps....

substandard maps? you think d-day is substandard? or pearl harbor? this is bullshit. go purchase photoshop spend countless hours learning to use it properly then 3-6 months coming up with a map idea designing it and satisfying all the requests and then talk about substandard maps. i dare you to do that. i did. i didn't like that there wasn't a complicated map on the site so i learned photoshop and made my own map instead of coming in the forums and whining about this or that. nobody puts a gun to your head to play a certain map. you have over 50 maps to choose from so chose the ones you like and shut up.

[AndrewB]

What kind of conversation it is? Shut up???? LOL

I am sorry I have opened my mouth and misbehaved, Your Majesty!

I am good in the programming. That is why I am not doing designing. I never will be as good in designing as a person who does is for the living.

But I did read some books on the design, and those maps are not following any of it.

If you think you can become a good designer in 3 months you are DEEPLY mistaken.
You can become an expert in Photoshop but to be a designer you need more the Photoshop. You need skills. And talent. And knowledge...

And as I said I am going to shut up. No need to waste my time and nerves. And you go and play in your little kingdom you've created for yourself, called Foundry...

[DiM]

- i suppose we do. i mix mainly with other high ranked players and dont really take into account opinions when doing so. it just so happens that a very large majority of them/us feels exactly the same way about these new maps, and to me at least rank and skill equates to a more solidly grounded opinion on them. whether the foundry as a whole is actually willing to take this on board or not is another matter, im just calling it as i see it

actually your whole argument is flawed right from the start in so many ways i can't even describe it. but i'll try.

1. you say high rankers and a very large part of them shares your opinion. well actually if i look at the games of people over 2000 i can see many people that play the new maps. people that like pearl harbor or age of merchants. so i don't see your vast majority

2. rank and skill. hmm tough one here. i can honestly say that due to the system point on this site rank and skill are not correlated. i've played people with 2000+ points that are crap and i've seen people with 1200 point pull some great moves. if a guy plays triples with 3 accounts at the same time (supposedly sitting for the other accounts) and gets some big points that doesn't make him a skilled player at all. or if a guy plays only freestyle doubles on classic map with his room mate and gets to major that doesn't make him a skilled player either. a skilled player is the one that plays all the setting on all the maps and gets to the first spots. that's skill all the others are point hungry people that think getting to #1 by abusing the score system is something to be proud of.

3. stating the fact that the high rankers opinion is more important is the third flaw. i for one think that any opinion is important and when i look at the feedback i receive on my maps i don't look at the poster's rank. i don't care if he's a cook or a major. as long as he has a valid point i'll listen to him. and the second part of this flaw is that judging from a marketing point of view the opinion of the high rankers should actually be the least important. we have ~350 people over 2000 points. that's less than 2% of the total number of active players. we make maps for everybody not for 2% of the users.

[khazalid]

you miss my point completely. everyone knows rank and skill dont directly correlate and there are abuses in the system. im just trying to tell you that the playability of some of these maps comes a distant second to gimmickry and graphics, and youd do well to listen rather than play the predictable foundry card of hostility to everyone not in your little clique. cairns posted well and cordially, you did not, and that is a great pity. try enticing more people in with that attitude if you like...

[DiM]

What kind of conversation it is? Shut up???? LOL

I am sorry I have opened my mouth and misbehaved, Your Majesty!

Why don't you shut up for a change???

I am good in the programming. That is why I am not doing designing. I never will be as good in designing as a person who does is for the leaving.

But I did read some books on the design, and those maps are not following any of it.

If you think you can become a good designer in 3 months you are DEEPLY mistaken.
You can become an expert in Photoshop but to be a designer you need more the Photoshop. You need skills. And talent. And knowledge...

And as I said I am going to shut up. No need to waste my time and nerves. And you go and play in your little kingdom you've created for yourself, called Foundry...

i didn't say i'm a good designer or an expert in photoshop. heck i'm a manager in real life and i have nothing to do with this sort of things. i only wanted to point 2 things:

1. you have no idea how maps are produced and the amount of effort that's put in their creation, therefor coming here and whining and saying that some maps are substandard is a big stinking pile of bullshit.

2. and the second thing i'm trying to point is that if you don't have something then you can simply make it. i made age of merchants because i wanted something different i didn't come to the foundry saying everything else is substandard and we need a map like age of merchants. i simply learned how to do it and did it.

you don't post in the foundry, you don't get involved in providing feedback for maps in creation or even create your own map therefor you have no right to offend the people that provide you and others various maps to play on.

you come here and say that everything you don't like is substandard. who's standard? yours? have you ever considered the fact that your standards may not fit the standards of other people? have you ever thought that perhaps you're not the most important person on this site and that not everybody must fall at your feet and obey your desires? you bullshit me by calling me "your majesty" look in the mirror boy i think you're the wannabe king around here.
news flash: the world does not revolve around you. you're just 1 in 20 thousand of players and while you have a right to an opinion that doesn't mean people should follow your advice and for sure it doesn't give you the right to insult other people for not meeting your standards.

i want 3d maps on conquerclub, i want clickable maps i want xml features i want a lot of things on this site and yet lackattack hasn't provided them for me. do i go and tell him CC is substandard? do i go and insult him because he doesn't do the site like i want?

[DiM]

you miss my point completely. everyone knows rank and skill dont directly correlate and there are abuses in the system. im just trying to tell you that the playability of some of these maps comes a distant second to gimmickry and graphics, and youd do well to listen rather than play the predictable foundry card of hostility to everyone not in your little clique. cairns posted well and cordially, you did not, and that is a great pity. try enticing more people in with that attitude if you like...

you said that ranked and thus skilled players should be considered to have a more important opinion. and i disagreed with that. plain and simple. if i want to make a marketable map i'll more likely guide myself on the opinions of players bellow 1200 because that's where most of them are. the point of the maps is to make a pleasurable experience. what makes you happy perhaps doesn't make a cook happy and vice-versa. some maps are great for escalating because they offer a great liberty of movement like battle of actium while others like pearl harbor don't because they have a bunch of dead ends. that doesn't mean either of that maps is bad it simply means it's more suited for a different game style.


and yes i have a blunt way of telling things. i know that and all i can say is that i won't change. i prefer to tell people in the face what i think than to try and sweet talk them. i always considered that it's better to be brutally honest than to be diplomatic scumbag. i'm sorry about this but that's how i am.

[oaktown]

oh, DiM... sometimes by arguing against somebody you make their argument for them.

Let's boil this down. Users want maps that:
1. play well
2. look good
3. are easy to read

In addition to these three points, mapmakers want to create maps that are
4. in some way unique or original.

Point by point...

1. What plays well? Some think it is a simple, classic style map. Others think it is a complex, AoM style map. Others think it is somewhere in between. So we'll never all agree on this. Best case scenario is that we have many maps going through the foundry, and in the end the interests and wishes of every player is met by at least some maps. I think this is the current state of the foundry.

2. What looks good? When users voted on a new Canada map WM's won. Now many users don't like it. Same disagreement exists for Berlin, Midkemia, etc. It's a matter of taste, so we'll never agree on this. Best case scenario is we weed out the maps that are universally considered awful to look at, and we quench the ones that have a significant level of support. I think this is the current state of the foundry.

3. What is easy to read? Color blind users have a unique perspective on this, and as a colorblind user I have posted my concerns in countless map threads, most of which have been addressed. Other users have different colorblind issues than I do, and as a mapmaker I can't make my map friendly to user X unless unless User X makes his concern known in my thread. So readability is achievable, but only with input from all potentially impacted users. Sadly, I think the foundry does not always succeed in this area, largely because I seem to be the only color blind foundry regular and I can't follow the development of every map. The foundry needs help from the rest of the CC community, and it is best to get such help BEFORE a map is quenched.

4. Originality. No map user wants to recreate classic; we want something origin in terms of gameplay, design, theme or region. This is what draws people into the mapmaking process in the first place, and if we say that originality isn't allowed we may as well scrap the process and all play classic.

The foundry isn't perfect. What we primarily need are more voices in the process giving feedback on maps. I welcome feedback on Duck & Cover - it's not perfect, and it never will be unless I get more help. So help. Especially if you like small maps.

If anybody feels as if you're being ridiculed in this thread by the foundry regulars for your criticism, well, you are. Showing up to criticize a map or mapmaker after a three month process in which you couldn't be bothered to make a single post is an act worthy of ridicule. And the time you spend responding to this post could be put to use improving a map.

My Berlin map sat in the Forge for three weeks, and I move three circles a total of three pixels... that was all the feedback I got in three weeks. That was after ten weeks in the foundry coming up with a color scheme and patterns that most - not all - users approved of. Not to mention the dozen different bonus structures that were proposed and improved upon. So if you started a game on Berlin and you are now stuck playing a map you absolutely hate, I can only say Thank You, Come Again!