foundry process revamp

[DiM]

Oh by the way him i voted for the middle option because you can always improve!!!! So i dont know who the other 5 who voted for NO were because if they think nothing can be improved then they are very easy people to please and who have no creative imagination whatsoever

it's DiM not him

anyway if you didn't vote then who the heck are the 5 person that are please. i'd really want to hear why they are pleased and why do they think nothing can be improved. perhaps they're on to something perhaps they are right. let's hear it guys.

mod squad

hehe don't think so, but anyway unless those people come and express their opinion on why the foundry shouldn't be improved all we have is a thread where everybody asks for improvement and tries a solution. those votes count for nothing without proper posting

[oaktown]

Making scapegoats for problems doesn't help anything. With the amount of maps being made and the amount of people around to actually give feedback or moderate, I'd say the process is doing fairly well.

Edbeard talks sense. Take a look at the 21 non-sticky threads in the main section of the Foundry that have received feedback over the past nine days: there are 9 active foundry maps, 3 maps that are dead or on vacation, and 9 threads about other stuff... map size, XML glicthes, these maps suck, my feelings are hurt because I can't make a map in KidPix, etc.

It would be nice if we could move these side-conversations, however valid, into a sub-forum so that active maps don't get pushed down and ignored. My current project actually got more feedback when it was in the Map Ideas sub-forum.

[hulmey]

So you wan to hide a importnat thread like this in sub forums so that your map can get more feedback...Very selfish

[oaktown]

So you wan to hide a importnat thread like this in sub forums so that your map can get more feedback...Very selfish

I see your point. God forbid anybody should actually discuss maps in the Foundry!

[Spockers]

So you wan to hide a importnat thread like this in sub forums so that your map can get more feedback...Very selfish

I hope you are joking hulmey, because if not, you're an absolute tool.

The problem with the foundry is the strange consensus that this place should be a democracy. People seem to think that the majority ruling on any poll should be the final answer.

Map makers should be taking more ownship of their own maps and not asking for help for every single decision they make. This happens on almost every 2nd map.

If you don't have your own ideas to complete your own map then it shouldn't be moved out of the ideas forum.

A map maker should not be making his decisions on majority ruling... they should be able to look at all suggestions given to them then decide on what they (the maker) think is best NOT the majority.

I can only see majority ruling coming into it in regards to graphics.


I really think this would stop a lot of then general crap getting through and give more freedom to the map maker.

[GreecePwns]

Map makers should be taking more ownship of their own maps and not asking for help for every single decision they make. This happens on almost every 2nd map.

If you don't have your own ideas to complete your own map then it shouldn't be moved out of the ideas forum.

A map maker should not be making his decisions on majority ruling... they should be able to look at all suggestions given to them then decide on what they (the maker) think is best NOT the majority.

I can only see majority ruling coming into it in regards to graphics.


I really think this would stop a lot of then general crap getting through and give more freedom to the map maker.

...we could be putting out a bunch of crap maps, and end up like landgrab (and we all know that is not good at all).

[oaktown]

Here's a thought... maybe maps are being put into the Final Forge stage too soon. It gives the mapmaker the sense that the map is nearly complete, and then people get angry when the map isn't ready weeks or months later. It's my opinion that some of the maps in the Final Forge subforum still need significant work, as do some of the maps that have already gone live.

[DiM]

Here's a thought... maybe maps are being put into the Final Forge stage too soon. It gives the mapmaker the sense that the map is nearly complete, and then people get angry when the map isn't ready weeks or months later. It's my opinion that some of the maps in the Final Forge subforum still need significant work, as do some of the maps that have already gone live.

i agree and at the same time disagree with you. some maps are put into final forge very very quickly. while some sit and wait for a mod to come along and say something.

for example the indochina revamp was forged 9 days after it was released and then quenched another 9 days after that. a total of 18 days. well i know maps that have stayed more than 18 days without a single feedback and no mod ever came to final forge or quench them.

so yes some maps should be kept longer while others should get more attention and be sped up a bit.

also there are maps out there that have been quenched with very few feedbacks. and that shows if you look at the total games played on those maps. i'm not giving any names because it doesn't matter. the point is some maps go through the foundry like a blaze and then when they reach live play they die quickly and prove to be unsuccessful while others are kept in various stages of development because the mods don't show up to advance them.

[unriggable]

Here's a thought... maybe maps are being put into the Final Forge stage too soon. It gives the mapmaker the sense that the map is nearly complete, and then people get angry when the map isn't ready weeks or months later. It's my opinion that some of the maps in the Final Forge subforum still need significant work, as do some of the maps that have already gone live.

Eh, I dunno, think about it. What does a map need:

-Playability
-Theme
-Looks

The first two are addressed since it's a revamp, and the last one is almost instantly solved since, at least for the Indochina map, we vote on the best looking one.

[Coleman]

Here's a thought... maybe maps are being put into the Final Forge stage too soon. It gives the mapmaker the sense that the map is nearly complete, and then people get angry when the map isn't ready weeks or months later. It's my opinion that some of the maps in the Final Forge subforum still need significant work, as do some of the maps that have already gone live.

That isn't my thought after looking at all of them, but you have more of an eye for that then I do.

[edbeard]

well there's quite a few maps with lots of feedback that don't have many games either. Look at the newer maps with lots of games played. There's basically three of them (I took that from carinswk's thread)

Age of Merchants, Doodle Earth and Siege!

These maps all share unique gameplay. Siege less so than the others but still in that category. I think maps like that are going to get more play because people want something different. Does this mean that more standard maps like Caribbean Islands and Mongol Empire should not have been made? No way. There's always room for lots of maps of all different styles.

One thing that does remain is more symmetrical maps like Chinese Checkers, Valley of the Kings, and 8 thoughts are not as popular. This doesn't mean they shouldn't be made either. Some people love those maps.

I personally don't think that any of the maps that have been quenched in recent times are bad. I don't care what the map statistics say. I like to make maps that I will play and enjoy thoroughly. I'm sure others do as well. If someone wants a popular map, then look at the characteristics of the popular maps and adapt them to your own.



All that being said, I don't think the quality of the maps that have come out is in question Dim, or should it be. The process is what needs looking at. The problem is that with the amount of maps being made and the amount of feedback both official and unofficial is lacking. This slows things down because no one really knows how everyone feels about the changes. People who go with the flow making changes without question will always have things move faster for them. Those that don't will face more roadblocks just because you have to defend your side, you have to have people agree with you and you have usually need an official opinion.

Maybe we're all too nitpicky about things, but it's impossible to strive for the quality of maps that we have whist keeping everyone in the process happy. It's a tough racket for cartographers and honestly the best way for things to move along is for more people to comment more often so a consensus of opinion can be realized.

[oaktown]

Here's a thought... maybe maps are being put into the Final Forge stage too soon. It gives the mapmaker the sense that the map is nearly complete, and then people get angry when the map isn't ready weeks or months later. It's my opinion that some of the maps in the Final Forge subforum still need significant work, as do some of the maps that have already gone live.

That isn't my thought after looking at all of them, but you have more of an eye for that then I do.

Let me clarify: I don't think that the maps in the Forge sub-forum are bad, just that they still need some work. When a map is given that "final forge" stamp it gives the impression that the moderators think it is close to being finished, so it's frustrating to then see your map sit in this "Final" stage for weeks or months. If I was the creator of the Portugal map my head would be spinning right now... why say that my map is nearly ready, then throw dozens of changes at me?

And I'm glad you think that I have a good eye, Coleman... in fact I'm quite colorblind and I've worn glasses since I was seven, but I know what bothers me when I see it and I'm not afraid to say so.

[DiM]

well there's quite a few maps with lots of feedback that don't have many games either. Look at the newer maps with lots of games played. There's basically three of them (I took that from carinswk's thread)

Age of Merchants, Doodle Earth and Siege!

These maps all share unique gameplay. Siege less so than the others but still in that category. I think maps like that are going to get more play because people want something different. Does this mean that more standard maps like Caribbean Islands and Mongol Empire should not have been made? No way. There's always room for lots of maps of all different styles.

One thing that does remain is more symmetrical maps like Chinese Checkers, Valley of the Kings, and 8 thoughts are not as popular. This doesn't mean they shouldn't be made either. Some people love those maps.

I personally don't think that any of the maps that have been quenched in recent times are bad. I don't care what the map statistics say. I like to make maps that I will play and enjoy thoroughly. I'm sure others do as well. If someone wants a popular map, then look at the characteristics of the popular maps and adapt them to your own.



All that being said, I don't think the quality of the maps that have come out is in question Dim, or should it be. The process is what needs looking at. The problem is that with the amount of maps being made and the amount of feedback both official and unofficial is lacking. This slows things down because no one really knows how everyone feels about the changes. People who go with the flow making changes without question will always have things move faster for them. Those that don't will face more roadblocks just because you have to defend your side, you have to have people agree with you and you have usually need an official opinion.

Maybe we're all too nitpicky about things, but it's impossible to strive for the quality of maps that we have whist keeping everyone in the process happy. It's a tough racket for cartographers and honestly the best way for things to move along is for more people to comment more often so a consensus of opinion can be realized.

i'm not questioning exactly the map quality on its own but the foundry process and only indirectly the quality of the maps. if you look at the 3 maps you used as an example all of them have lots of replies and debating. siege a bit less but still more than enough. on the other hand if you look at other maps that aren't as played you'll notice a slight difference or even a big difference in number of replies. these replies show the degree of interest and the amount of time and effort put by the community into those maps. i'm not saying that any one is bad i'm just saying that perhaps the quenching could have waited a bit more and perhaps the final result would have been better. or perhaps not i can't really say. perhaps the so eagerly requested testing facility would be the answer to all the problems. perhaps it will offer valuable feedback that some maps sometimes lack. well i'm really tempted to delete all i have written in tis post as i feel it doesn't make much sense. i'm horribly tired and i can barely keep my eyes open. it's 5:40 am. please ignore this post.
actually ignore everything except the part where i say we need a testing facility. cheers.

[DiM]

Here's a thought... maybe maps are being put into the Final Forge stage too soon. It gives the mapmaker the sense that the map is nearly complete, and then people get angry when the map isn't ready weeks or months later. It's my opinion that some of the maps in the Final Forge subforum still need significant work, as do some of the maps that have already gone live.

That isn't my thought after looking at all of them, but you have more of an eye for that then I do.

Let me clarify: I don't think that the maps in the Forge sub-forum are bad, just that they still need some work. When a map is given that "final forge" stamp it gives the impression that the moderators think it is close to being finished, so it's frustrating to then see your map sit in this "Final" stage for weeks or months. If I was the creator of the Portugal map my head would be spinning right now... why say that my map is nearly ready, then throw dozens of changes at me?

And I'm glad you think that I have a good eye, Coleman... in fact I'm quite colorblind and I've worn glasses since I was seven, but I know what bothers me when I see it and I'm not afraid to say so.

yes perhaps some maps need a bit more work. but as you already stated it's really frustrating to see that message where it's stated that in 2 days the map will be quenched if no requests are made and 2 months after the same people that said it's nearly done come in and make requests.

[edbeard]

well they got rid of the 2 days thing a while ago because of not being able to hold that standard

[DiM]

well they got rid of the 2 days thing a while ago because of not being able to hold that standard

yep but it still is frustrating

[DiM]

on another note, i'm going to sleep now. it's been a tough night at work and i'm tired. when i log in again i would like to see 2 things
1. an official response. i know keyogi has been online as i've seen him post in other threads. don't know about andy
2. some sort of feedback from the 5 nay sayers

cheers.

[Incandenza]

it's 5:40 am. please ignore this post.
actually ignore everything except the part where i say we need a testing facility. cheers.

If anything comes out of this thread, we need testing. And maybe not just testing at the end to ensure that the xml works. Testing would be a good way to ensure that the map is at least reasonably balanced.

[Coleman]

One thing I want to not do, as much as it may help my D-Day map. Is to have testing be an excuse. Anyone saying, 'this gameplay works, you'll see in testing' should be shot. Quickly. I've come to learn from further study into Information Assurance that there is no way to adequately test for everything.

[hulmey]

this is a map we are talking about not a rolls royce engine

[oaktown]

I'd love to see a quick round of play testing to make sure the XML checks out, but that's it. If you want to test gameplay, you should print out your map, call some friends over, and open a bottle of scotch. EvilOtto and I sat down one day and field tested our maps, and it led to some very important changes for both projects. (Where is that riskopoly map anyway, Otto?)

One or two games of play testing should work out most bugs. New maps could easily be loaded but not yet advertised - just open up a game or two to the mapmaker and a select few who were involved in the map creation, and let others watch on. You'd get quite an audience!

[Incandenza]

One thing I want to not do, as much as it may help my D-Day map. Is to have testing be an excuse. Anyone saying, 'this gameplay works, you'll see in testing' should be shot. Quickly. I've come to learn from further study into Information Assurance that there is no way to adequately test for everything.

I disagree. Now, we all know that no map is perfectly balanced. In classic, if you start off with a bunch of oceania, your chances of winning go up. In San Francisco, if you're primarily based in the north, same thing. In Middle Earth, you're best off in mordor. And so on.

But small imbalances are fine. It's the big imbalances, the 'the only way you'll win is if you start in such-and-such area' imbalances that playtesting could alleviate. The key for such testing is to have a diverse base of testers (colonels, cooks, escalating specialists, no cards specialists, doubles teams, triples teams) and a decent number of concrete results. This method of testing has already been used of other site features. Why not for maps?

If nothing else, if 8 times out of 10 the guy who had the most forces concentrated in the north won on the D-Day map, then maybe the whole 'germans should have a bonus' discussion could be buried once and for all.

[BelJoDoe]

After having read the entire thread, I'm glad to see that people are in agreement regarding a play-test area. I'm also glad to see that, so far, cool heads have prevailed throughout the discussion and while some critisism has been levelled, overt aggression has been tempered.

Moderation in moderation
I, for one, believe that posts and alterations by the moderators of the foundry should deal primarily with improving the ideas and focussing the community towards helping the map-maker.
If a map idea needs its bonuses clarified, the moderator should address the community in the post and say something like "Guys, let's focus on the bonuses, do you like them?".
All too often I see unfocussed comments from the community, concentrating on areas of the map idea that aren't yet ready to be adressed. This results in the map maker spending far too much of his early cartographical time concentrating on graphical elements, rather than on game-play issues. A post by the moderator, addressed to the community -rather than to the map maker-, spelling out how they can help the map-maker would go a long way towards making the moderators become more of a positive, co-operative influence on the design, rather than as critic, whose posts might be feared.
As an example, when I wanted to try and create Pixel World my idea received a reply by Spockers (Quote: "please just don't"), which clearly adds nothing to the process and seem to have been posted simply to make me feel like I was wasting my time. These kinds of posts which seem designed to detract, derail and gradually discourage the map-maker should warrant the moderator's attention, making the moderator a far more supportive 'tool' in the map-making process.
Additionally, moderators should understand that their own comments, if critical, can carry a great deal of weight and can skew the community against a design, rather than aiding in its improvement. Understanding this and perhaps using the PM system to express their own thoughts regarding a map-idea might be a better solution.


Cartographical limitations
I, like most of those I've spoken with or whose views I have read, would love to see larger maps. I have some choice already in which maps I would like to play. I don't think I need have that choice made for me by blanket-banning larger maps. If the maps exist, they will either be played or not, depending on what players want. Personally, if the larger maps were there to be selected, I would choose them. If I didn't enjoy them, I would stick to smaller maps but I would not demand that the larger maps be removed from the site. There are already maps that I don't think I'd enjoy... I simply don't play those.



I -and I believe most of those with map ideas- want to create something that will give enjoyment to the community. I believe that these cartographers are a Conquer-Club resource that should not be squandered. They deserve our help and our support.

[DiM]

I'd love to see a quick round of play testing to make sure the XML checks out, but that's it. If you want to test gameplay, you should print out your map, call some friends over, and open a bottle of scotch. EvilOtto and I sat down one day and field tested our maps, and it led to some very important changes for both projects. (Where is that riskopoly map anyway, Otto?)

One or two games of play testing should work out most bugs. New maps could easily be loaded but not yet advertised - just open up a game or two to the mapmaker and a select few who were involved in the map creation, and let others watch on. You'd get quite an audience!

testing is needed not just for the xml but also for the gameplay.

for AoM i've played dozens of games with my friends on a printed version. i worked out some minor things and thought it is great. despite that people said i should change it. i repeated over and over that i have play tested the map extensively and yet nobody seemed to care. this went on for a lot of time until my stubbornness prevailed and i convinced the others the gameplay is fine. if we had a testing facility a simple game would have been more than enough to make my point and all the useless discussions would have been avoided.

so we need intensive testing especially in the earliest stage of the game when the gameplay is discussed. before even any graphical aspect is done. it's a bitch to think you have the gameplay done then finish the graphics and then someone comes and asks for border modifications because he doesn't like the gameplay. it's very unproductive because you have to rethink the gameplay but also make major graphical modifications.

[Coleman]

If nothing else, if 8 times out of 10 the guy who had the most forces concentrated in the north won on the D-Day map, then maybe the whole 'germans should have a bonus' discussion could be buried once and for all.

At the risk of hijacking..

I only played it 4 times and published 2 of them. Nothing really similar happened in any of them. The first, someone (me ) managed a beach early and nobody else stopped him soon enough. In the second, two people fought over the strategic locations in the north as two fought for the ships. One of the northern guys got the underhand before one of the ship guys did and won. In the next match the opposite happened and the flyovers helped the ships immensely. The fourth was sort of a mix. The person had a ship and a few north bunkers/artillery early and then worked the map from both fronts.

I think it would take a lot of games to see a trend, if there is one. My concern is some serious exploit or imbalance could be missed if it exists.