Conquer Club

There's been talk/speculation about the current stamping structure being too rigid, and I'm intrigued to know if people have potential solutions to the perception that we currently apply too much rigour.

To take an extreme and hypothetical example, if the stamps were to be withdrawn from circulation, how do you envisage map production would take place? What steps would you implement to ensure that there were no fatal gameplay flaws or graphical deficiencies?

Allow maps to be Beta tested by a group of users, with no points impacts, and have that team vote yay or nay and rank it on a predetermined system. You might also catch the bugs that way.

Eg. The group rates Doodle......

Quads: Rating 1, not enough area, quick eliminations etc.

Assasin: Rating 7: Essentially a lottery, but does present opportunities for a quick kill and win which is within the spirit of Assasin

And so on and so on.....


Also, based on the committee's rankings, you would have a beginning idea of how to classify the maps (as many have suggested to categorize) eg. Extreme, Difficult, Standard, Easy and Huge, Large, Medium, Small etc.

Make a poll where cartographers will give 2 votes (1 for graphics, 1 for gameplay), general CC population will give another 2 votes (same as before 1 GX, 1 GP) and the 5th and definitive vote will be given by the yellowish banana among the bunch: AndyDufresne

Example...
Cartographers approved gameplay = 1 vote
Cartographers disapproved graphics = 0 votes
General CC population poll #1 (graphics) results: Do you approve graphics? yes = 1 vote
General CC population poll #2 (gameplay) results: Do you approve gameplay? no = 0 votes.
AndyDufresne - Do you overall approve the map? Yes = 1 vote.
____________________________________________________________________
Final result: The map gets approved for Beta Testing by a majority of 3/5 votes.

Just a quick idea =P

fumandomuerte wrote:Make a poll where cartographers will give 2 votes (1 for graphics, 1 for gameplay), general CC population will give another 2 votes (same as before 1 GX, 1 GP) and the 5th and definitive vote will be given by the yellowish banana among the bunch: AndyDufresne

Example...
Cartographers approved gameplay = 1 vote
Cartographers disapproved graphics = 0 votes
General CC population poll #1 (graphics) results: Do you approve graphics? yes = 1 vote
General CC population poll #2 (gameplay) results: Do you approve gameplay? no = 0 votes.
AndyDufresne - Do you overall approve the map? Yes = 1 vote.
____________________________________________________________________
Final result: The map gets approved for Beta Testing by a majority of 3/5 votes.

Just a quick idea =P

Noooooooooo

Just leave it how it is... whats the big deal here, Obama gets into office and everyone wants change?



-griff

The current system is fine. There's nothing wrong with getting gameplay done before graphics.

I wouldn't touch the stamping system. There are other aspects of the foundry that could use work though, and I'll elaborate on that later...

Mod vote.

The mod of that particular foundry says the map is at a point where a vote should be called. The foundry mods vote and if 50% give it the ok, then cool.

Though that might be a problem for mods who have less time to take a look at a complex map and analyze it.

What's Andy got to do with it - Benny is the Foundry Foreman these days.

C.

It was just to mention randomly someone from the staff. But you're right, it should be the Foundry Foreman the one giving the final vote.

The stamp system is not a bad idea. It only needs to be loosened up so that it does not matter in which order you get them.

I like the idea jp put forth. A true beta system that tests all aspects of the map, is a no brainer if you ask me.

I have always said that the power to quench maps should belong to the community, not Foundry cliques. The Foundry Vets should be relegated to just helping mapmakers with their maps, not judging their worthiness.

A more robust Beta system should be built. It should have at least a hundred members, You could even give them their own badge to display with their avi.

Then after a map has acquired all of the required stamps, it is thrust into the Beta groups hands. There it can be played, and then evaluated with a standardized questionnaire.

After it has completed the Beta testing phase it is kicked back over to the Foundry, where the polled questionnaire is discussed. Again the Foundry will try to help the mapmaker improve the map and then send it back to Beta for round two. This back and forth can go on for as long as it takes, (or something like a strike 3 your out) could be implemented.

This kind of structure will produce the "helping hand" attitude that the Foundry is sometimes lacking.

Also, as a side note I would recommend that the requirement that all maps be made so that they play well on all settings, be caned. If a map is proved to not work well on certain settings, then those settings should be blocked. There is no reason to homogenize our maps that way.

porkenbeans wrote:It only needs to be loosened up so that it does not matter in which order you get them.

Disagree - the idea of the current system is to get a map with decent gameplay - then make the graphics match them...

Otherwise we end up with good looking maps that have duff GP but get quenched anyway.

C.

yeti_c wrote:

porkenbeans wrote:It only needs to be loosened up so that it does not matter in which order you get them.

Disagree - the idea of the current system is to get a map with decent gameplay - then make the graphics match them...

Otherwise we end up with good looking maps that have duff GP but get quenched anyway.

C.

If the gp stamp was given out when it should not have, then that is on the one that stamped it.

porkenbeans wrote:

yeti_c wrote:

porkenbeans wrote:It only needs to be loosened up so that it does not matter in which order you get them.

Disagree - the idea of the current system is to get a map with decent gameplay - then make the graphics match them...

Otherwise we end up with good looking maps that have duff GP but get quenched anyway.

C.

If the gp stamp was given out when it should not have, then that is on the one that stamped it.

Except that if they are both given out at the same time then there is no focus on gameplay - so people keep making graphics comments - and the gameplay discussion stalls... and we're back to the - No comments = acceptance thing again.

C.

I think the stamp system is good, and the worries about "too rigid" are caused not by the stamps themselves, but by slowdowns in the system that should be attached to people with busy schedules and not inanimate stamps.

As for the "Beta Group" thing, the Foundry has been asking for a Test Area for as long as I've been in the Foundry (January 2008) and Lack has stalled on it continually. If you can manage to make traction where none of the Foundry Vets and several generations of mapmakers have managed to, you have garnered my respect.

yeti_c wrote:

porkenbeans wrote:

yeti_c wrote:

porkenbeans wrote:It only needs to be loosened up so that it does not matter in which order you get them.

Disagree - the idea of the current system is to get a map with decent gameplay - then make the graphics match them...

Otherwise we end up with good looking maps that have duff GP but get quenched anyway.

C.

If the gp stamp was given out when it should not have, then that is on the one that stamped it.

Except that if they are both given out at the same time then there is no focus on gameplay - so people keep making graphics comments - and the gameplay discussion stalls... and we're back to the - No comments = acceptance thing again.

C.

Good point. But in my opinion, the graphics and gameplay evolve together. The graphics change with every new gp change. So it is perfectly reasonable that the graphics will be the last thing to change. But, this does not mean that you need to start with gp, and then "preetyfy" it. This is a slam on the graphic artist, by those that can not draw a straight line. I have shown that you can start with a graphic concept first, and then get to work on how you might work the gp in, to make a good game out of it. The graphics will need to change in order to incorporate the gp. I guess what I am mostly miffed at is when I am told that I must work out all of the gameplay before I do any graphics. This is not how any map is done. All start with a rough draft first. It's just that I spend a little more time on m first drafts, and therefore it usually looks like most maps do, at a stage well into production.

I think that the graphics and the game play evolve right along side of each other. AND, while the GP should receive the first stamp, it is not at all improper for the graphics to be hammered out as the gp evolves. Maybe this whole idea of gp and gr workshops, is not the best way to go. Trying to separate them like this seems unrealistic.

Maybe it would work better with just -

a.) Ideas thread- Where ideas are discussed, teams are formed, and design briefs are posted.

b.) Map workshop- Where Individual map threads are started, and the maps evolve until they are stamped good to go, with gp and graphics stamps.

c.) Final Forge- where the code is done and then the map is kicked up to the Beta testers.

d.) Beta- Where maps are road tested, and a standard questionnaire is completed by a large pool of testers. The poll is then sent back to the Foundry where improvements can be made if the poll shows any are needed. It may be a somewhat rocky start, but I believe that the Beta process will evolve into a much, much better way to quench maps.

That's exactly what it was like before, not that that's a bad thing. Meh, maybe it's a nostalgia blast, but I miss having no "Main Foundry" subforum. The stamp system is fine though, you just have to deal with. yeti's 100% correct that GP should come before GR, but it's not like it's any different now: as stampers in the old system, we were instructed to wait for the GP stamp to stamp for GR. If you think about it, the idea's perfectly logical. You shouldn't have the mapper make any GR changes that would only go for the stamp while there are drastic GP changes that would affect the map.

I can indeed imagine a Foundry with No Stamps---because I was there for that era long ago! It worked well with a small number of maps, but as participation and growth accumulated (and as maps started to move from not just being 42 regions reshuffled in a slightly different Classic) the basic structure of stamps helped keep everything coherent!


--Andy

jpcloet wrote:Allow maps to be Beta tested by a group of users, with no points impacts, and have that team vote yay or nay and rank it on a predetermined system. You might also catch the bugs that way.

Eg. The group rates Doodle......

Quads: Rating 1, not enough area, quick eliminations etc.

Assasin: Rating 7: Essentially a lottery, but does present opportunities for a quick kill and win which is within the spirit of Assasin

And so on and so on.....


Also, based on the committee's rankings, you would have a beginning idea of how to classify the maps (as many have suggested to categorize) eg. Extreme, Difficult, Standard, Easy and Huge, Large, Medium, Small etc.

If one reads carefully, one can see that there's more than just the 'Beta-test group' idea here. Jpcloet is also proposing something that has rattled in the back of my mind as well:
A rubric.

The Foundry currently gives criteria for earning each stamp; a rubric, however, would give a quantitative component that I think would greatly improve the current qualitative evaluation.

Moreover, the current criterion for a stamp doesn't give many (if any) examples, nor does it really indicate why a map gets a stamp when it does... other than the objections have run dry and/or the mods are pleased.

porkenbeans wrote:The stamp system is not a bad idea. It only needs to be loosened up so that it does not matter in which order you get them.

I like the idea jp put forth. A true beta system that tests all aspects of the map, is a no brainer if you ask me.

I have always said that the power to quench maps should belong to the community, not Foundry cliques. The Foundry Vets should be relegated to just helping mapmakers with their maps, not judging their worthiness.

A more robust Beta system should be built. It should have at least a hundred members, You could even give them their own badge to display with their avi.

Then after a map has acquired all of the required stamps, it is thrust into the Beta groups hands. There it can be played, and then evaluated with a standardized questionnaire.

After it has completed the Beta testing phase it is kicked back over to the Foundry, where the polled questionnaire is discussed. Again the Foundry will try to help the mapmaker improve the map and then send it back to Beta for round two. This back and forth can go on for as long as it takes, (or something like a strike 3 your out) could be implemented.

This kind of structure will produce the "helping hand" attitude that the Foundry is sometimes lacking.

I have to say that I'm mostly in agreement with porkenbeans on this one.

I hear over and over the argument that "gameplay must come first, then graphics," but frankly this seems a bit disingenuous considering how the forums work. Honestly, no idea or concept I've seen (with the exception of Widowmaker's Draknor 2) has made it to the gameplay forum based solely upon its merits. Rather, the mods always seem to be waiting for something pretty to look at... which means concept, gameplay AND graphics. I'm really a bit surprised when I see posts talk about 'the way it used to be', since what I understand of the old system seems fairly close to the current one. The biggest improvement I think is mostly one of tone and atmosphere, not process.

If the forums actually advanced good map ideas to the Gameplay forum, and good gameplay maps to the graphics forum, each based solely on that merit... well, then there might be something to discuss, anyway. Really, I think this would be an improvement, since each person with a 'niche' could look at the relevant forum and discuss. As it is, the Foundry maps are often in random stages of development and discussion.

At the same time, map advancement does seem to be in the hands of 'Foundry cliques' as porkenbeans put it. I'm not saying that veterans should not have a deciding vote; but advancement will then necessarily sometimes seem arbitrary and frustrating to those outside of the circle.

Natty's Nordic Countries is a good example of what I'm talking about. His map sat around for quite awhile in the Graphics forum. He was quick and attentive to every comment. As a warning, he even put "Quench? lol" as part of the thread title! And yet, when his map finally got the the Final Forge, he was inundated with graphics criticism.

Now, Natty took this all rather well, but I admit to a great deal of frustration. One has to understand that when a map is ignored or mishandled, it not only affects the mapmaker, but everyone who posted about the map and/or follows the thread. Their efforts and time are also being criticised. They, too, want to see the map progress and dealt with in a sensible fashion.

If Foundry mods can't handle the volume of maps- which is understandable as they are volunteers too!- then maybe an elite circle of experienced vets isn't the way to go. The process as it stands is completely wedded to that concept. It can be changed.

Well I have to comment here... I was initially a bit "miffed" when after all the work in the GFX shop, as soon as I get in the FF I see people who say "this and this is wrong, etc"... But on the other hand, these people know what they're talking about, they've been doing this for a long time, and I appreciate all their comments & feedback. Just makes me wish these guys would have given these comments earlier... but hey, what's done is done, and in the end, my map has seen considerable improvement after being moved into the Final Forge (big part of which I have the.killing.44 to thank for, who has been kind enough to patiently offer loads of advice by pm...)

Anyway, "these guys" probably have their own reasons why they mostly stay in the Final Forge these days, I have a feeling I know at least part of them but I'll let them elaborate on that themselves if they wish.

As for the proposed changes... I don't know, to me it still makes a whole lot of sense to get the gameplay in check before you start working on the graphics. I mean, once you know the gameplay isn't going to change, you have free hands in developing the graphics around the current gameplay.

However, I agree that maps should move out of the melting pot faster. I agree with Marshalney: currently, while the map is in the melting pot, the map gets developed in all aspects, gameplay, graphics and theme, and this really conflicts with the principle of developing gameplay first.

I guess, when dealing with new mapmakers, the foundry mods want to see if the mapmaker is capable enough that they can "allow" him to proceed to the main forums... Which is understandable, in a way, since they probably don't want the later forums flooded with threads that never get finished, in the way melting pot is now...

Anyway, one possible solution would be to "hire" some "assistants" for the Foundry mods. These people could do stuff like help evaluating maps, they could mark map threads which they think are ready to move to the next forum, and the actual mods could just check the marked threads and make the final decision.

It is fine now. it takes a long time and keeps people who can't make good maps from getting their stuff quenched (like me) but makes it so that good people also have to prove each of their maps. I know that some people (qwert) would like to see a system where all maps by a good maker get passed and there are no stamps or anything, but this method is what works, Keep it.