Conquer Club

I'm concerned, MrBenn... The Melting Pot seems so tucked away now, and new map activity there has plummeted (and I am taking into account that several active threads were moved to the Drafting Room). I respect your Foreman decisions, but I also feel responsible to say when I think something's not quite right. I think a re-haul of the system may be in order, and I think it's worth discussing with your fellow cartos. The Drafting Room left for a reason, and it came back for another, making me think that the system isn't working properly. The Foundry process crawls along at an incredibly slow pace, some due to the mapmakers, I'll admit, but some due to the cartos as well. I've noticed in the Gameplay Workshop, I haven't seen TaCktiX or iancanton comment on a single map in ages. In the Graphics Workshop, maps are held up by the most frivolous edits, and other times the mapmaker's style is completely de-railed. In Final Forge, XML stamps are extremely slow for no apparent reason, considering many maps are waiting a long time even though Forza gave the OK already. My suggestion is to add more cartos, and structure the Foundry on a step-by-step basis rather than a categorical basis (thus the graphics, gameplay, etc. are developed simultaneously). Also, I think polls need to play more of a part in a map's development, especially at the very beginning, because if no one's gonna be interested enough to follow the map through the grueling process of the Foundry, is it worth it?

Cheers,
Sully

Personally i think that what you wrote looks more like a "I wanna be" post, than anything else....anyway please give us the time to do things, apply changes and, more than everything else, let us do our work...there're some other things in the pipeline...so VS spy less and draw maps instead!

Victor Sullivan wrote:. Also, I think polls need to play more of a part in a map's development, especially at the very beginning, because if no one's gonna be interested enough to follow the map through the grueling process of the Foundry, is it worth it?

Polls can be helpful. Polls often aren't though. If the cartographer wants to use a lot of polls, power to 'em though.


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:Polls can be helpful. Polls often aren't though. If the cartographer wants to use a lot of polls, power to 'em though.

These days it seems to me polls are pretty much worthless in the foundry.

natty_dread wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:Polls can be helpful. Polls often aren't though. If the cartographer wants to use a lot of polls, power to 'em though.

These days it seems to me polls are pretty much worthless in the foundry.

These days? They've always been next-to-meaningless

MrBenn wrote:

natty_dread wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:Polls can be helpful. Polls often aren't though. If the cartographer wants to use a lot of polls, power to 'em though.

These days it seems to me polls are pretty much worthless in the foundry.

These days? They've always been next-to-meaningless

Yeah, well, I was using "these days" in a very broad sense...



(that's my story and I'm sticking to it!)

My god... No wonder... You all dodged my points:

thenobodies80 wrote:Personally i think that what you wrote looks more like a "I wanna be" post, than anything else....anyway please give us the time to do things, apply changes and, more than everything else, let us do our work...there're some other things in the pipeline...so VS spy less and draw maps instead!

It's not a "wanna be" post, for god's sake nobodies, did you pay attention at all to my other points? I'm not "spying" either. If you're referring to my knowing isaiah's status on the Carto team before it happened, that's because I clicked on the "Cartographers" link to PM MrBenn about something and I saw isaiah there. And I'm not telling you how to do your job, nobodies, I even said:

Victor Sullivan wrote:I think a re-haul of the system may be in order, and I think it's worth discussing with your fellow cartos.

And neither is this meant to be a threat to your new leadership role or MrBenn's. It's something to take into serious consideration, as all my points were valid. I hope what you have "in the pipeline" actually fixes the problems I've addressed.

natty_dread wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:Polls can be helpful. Polls often aren't though. If the cartographer wants to use a lot of polls, power to 'em though.

These days it seems to me polls are pretty much worthless in the foundry.

My whole point with the polls is that they all seem to be disregarded by cartos (like natty said), and I think polls need to play a larger part in the mapmaking process. At least with the current set-up, a mandatory poll should be made at a thread's startup in the Melting Pot, then if the map meets a certain percentage quota, then they move to the Drafting Room. Anyways, it's nice you two commented on one point, but you completely ignored the rest...

MrBenn wrote:

natty_dread wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:Polls can be helpful. Polls often aren't though. If the cartographer wants to use a lot of polls, power to 'em though.

These days it seems to me polls are pretty much worthless in the foundry.

These days? They've always been next-to-meaningless

Why are you blatantly ignoring my post? I'm a bit offended, to say the least, Mr. Foreman.

Victor Sullivan wrote:My whole point with the polls is that they all seem to be disregarded by cartos (like natty said)

That's not even close to what I said. We're talking light years here.

Polls are not useless because they're "disregarded by cartos" (which they aren't). Polls are useless because they provide next to no value whatsoever to the mapmaker.

The only situation where polls can be even remotely useful is when you have a map draft and you want to know if there's enough support for it to go through. Even for map drafts, the situation varies - not every map needs a poll. If a poll becomes mandatory, it quickly becomes even less useful.

Problem with other polls is, not enough people vote in them for them to provide any valuable input for the mapmaker. And even when they do get votes, the votes only come from those who frequent the foundry and take the time to vote on polls - actually, most post-drafting room polls only get votes from people who are already following the map thread.

As for pointing out flaws in the new system, come on, it's only been a few days, there's no way you can make any objective evaluation of the merits or flaws of the new system vs. old.

The foundry process is slow. This is a fact of life. As long as it keeps being run by volunteer power, I don't see any rehaul or redesign changing that. And do we really want maps to come out any faster? Already, there are often so many maps in beta at the same time, that they have to compete for attention among the players. If maps came out faster, it would mean more flaws would go unnoticed. More good maps escaping the notice of the general public.

Victor Sullivan wrote:My god... No wonder... You all dodged my points:

Let's break it down blow-by-blow:

VS: The Melting Pot seems so tucked away now, and new map activity there has plummeted
MrB: It's been 10 days since the changed structure has been in place. The focus of the move is to bring the attention of early development onto making a map draft, rather than discussing ideas that often lead to nothing substantial.

VS: I respect your Foreman decisions, but I also feel responsible to say when I think something's not quite right. I think a re-haul of the system may be in order
MrB: Like I said, it's been 10 days since the change has been in place. Let's wait and see how things pan out, and how the "other things in the pipeline" effect things. If after a couple of months you still don;t think things are working, then I'll be open to consider further suggestions for how to improve things.

VS: I think it's worth discussing with your fellow cartos.
MrB: Indeed it is. Every change that takes place is subject to discussion long before, during and after the fact.

VS: The Drafting Room left for a reason, and it came back for another, making me think that the system isn't working properly.
MrB: You weren't active in the foundry prior to the big reshuffle that took place over Christmas in 2009, and so are unable to make an informed judgement on how things previously worked. The big change was moving map threads from the top-level Main Foundry into the Gameplay and Graphics workshops. When I merged the old Drafting Room and Map Ideas subforums, I also introduced the Design Brief - which has never worked as it were intended, and in that respect you're right. The reintroduction of the Drafting Room has been made as an easier way to separate map drafts and ideas with potential from those that have none (ie 'Middle Earth/Star Wars/Nintendo/Sperm Bank/Pencil/Plasagna map anyone?'). Some of the plans in the pipeline relate specifically to this aspect of the foundry.

VS: The Foundry process crawls along at an incredibly slow pace, some due to the mapmakers, I'll admit, but some due to the cartos as well.
MrB: The speed of the foundry ebbs and flows depending on a number of factors. While some maps do move very slowly, this is predominantly due to the mapmaker. However, it is important to note that none of us are paid for our time here, and so we all fit in our mapmaking or other foundry tasks around our (often hectic) real lives -- Some of us do have lives beyond the internet! However, just because most maps crawl through the foundry doesn;t mean that all maps do. The Quad Cities map is on the brink of the Forge after a quick couple of months, and the First Nations map will probably make it in a quick couple of weeks!

VS: I've noticed in the Gameplay Workshop, I haven't seen TaCktiX or iancanton comment on a single map in ages.
MrB: I shall dock their wages accordingly On a serious note though, Evil DIMwit is going to be massively missed in this area of the foundry. However, here's a challenge for you: when was the last time you posted an *in-depth* analysis of the gameplay of a map? Gameplay is one of the hardest things to comment on - even more-so when your insight is ignored or otherwise disregarded. I would encourage more and more people to spend more time thinking about how maps work than thinking of witty one-liners. If your post makes no contribution towards map development, then it is probably not a post worth making. Anyway, this thread is supposed to be about the Drafting Room.

VS: In the Graphics Workshop, maps are held up by the most frivolous edits, and other times the mapmaker's style is completely de-railed.
MrB: This is an interesting topic that may be worthy of further discussion elsewhere. This thread is supposed to be about the Drafting Room.

VS: In Final Forge, XML stamps are extremely slow for no apparent reason, considering many maps are waiting a long time even though Forza gave the OK already.
MrB: There is more to the XML and Beta stamping than the check that Forza very kindly carries out for us.

VS: My suggestion is to add more cartos
MrB: I've already mentioned that Evil DIMwit is going to be missed - in part due to the dearth of decent and regular gameplay commentators around the place. This has been a persistent problem in these parts - for some reason people seem to forget that the purpose of a map is to play a good game. This element aside, I'm pretty happy with the balance of the team at the moment. Way back in the day there was a single Cartographer... when I was a foundry newb that had increased to 3 but dropped back to 2 for some time. There are now 8 fully-blue cartography assistants - any more and we may as well make everybody who posts a carto!

VS: [and to] structure the Foundry on a step-by-step basis rather than a categorical basis (thus the graphics, gameplay, etc. are developed simultaneously).
MrB: Even before we had the different workshops, gameplay was supposed to be approved before the graphics. It's nonsense to suggest otherwise. For the most part, I agree that the two elements can be developed simultaneously, but too often people forget that the aesthetics of a map must be utterly subservient to gameplay. Without this differentiation, then we'll be back to the awkward times where mapmakers would "finish" their graphics with imperfect gameplay, and this impasses more critical than foundry drudgery.

VS: Also, I think polls need to play more of a part in a map's development, especially at the very beginning, because if no one's gonna be interested enough to follow the map through the grueling process of the Foundry, is it worth it?
MrB: Polls across the site (not just in the foundry) will never give a balanced view. You allude to the possibility of "weeding" maps at the initial development stages - this is exactly the purpose of the Drafting Room... but instead of allowing a whimsical poll to decide whether or not a map will make the grade, the Senior Cartographers will be expected to use their expereince and professional judgement to make that call.

Cheers,
MrBenn


PS Fastposted by natty, who also makes some good points.

I'm offended that you say I'm not posting. I will admit my post rate is not one/day in map topics. That is intentional. I am not a "follow every map" or even a "follow a few maps" CA, and I never have been. I intentionally pop into a map, typically mid-stage, toss at it all of my first impressions AFTER it's gotten some revision work done to it, and see what the mapmaker's responses are. I was convinced over to the Gameplay Workshop by virtue of the fact that I always put a fresh perspective on any map I post in. That perspective is borne from having no inherent bias from having followed the map for several weeks or months.

Oh yes, and since I'm not posting at all:
Struggle for Oil, Bucket List
Gondwanaland, Clerical Errors

Cuba and Chinese Civil War I am deliberately not posting on, since I have been solicited in private for my feedback several times.

THANK YOU for responding. To address your disagreements:

Natty: Polls are not useless because they're "disregarded by cartos" (which they aren't). Polls are useless because they provide next to no value whatsoever to the mapmaker.
VS: Okay, so you're saying they aren't useless but they are? I'm not following your logic here...

Natty: The only situation where polls can be even remotely useful is when you have a map draft and you want to know if there's enough support for it to go through. Even for map drafts, the situation varies - not every map needs a poll. If a poll becomes mandatory, it quickly becomes even less useful.
VS: This is exactly what the polls would be used for. If a poll becomes mandatory, how does that lessen its value?

Natty: Problem with other polls is, not enough people vote in them for them to provide any valuable input for the mapmaker. And even when they do get votes, the votes only come from those who frequent the foundry and take the time to vote on polls - actually, most post-drafting room polls only get votes from people who are already following the map thread.
VS: Yeah, I understand that. I figure the polls would be primarily to determine interest in the early stages.

Natty: As for pointing out flaws in the new system, come on, it's only been a few days, there's no way you can make any objective evaluation of the merits or flaws of the new system vs. old.
VS: But this is the old system, and it clearly didn't work before.

Natty: The foundry process is slow. This is a fact of life. As long as it keeps being run by volunteer power, I don't see any rehaul or redesign changing that. And do we really want maps to come out any faster? Already, there are often so many maps in beta at the same time, that they have to compete for attention among the players. If maps came out faster, it would mean more flaws would go unnoticed. More good maps escaping the notice of the general public.
VS: That's why I suggested more cartos - more quickness, but same efficiency. And it's better to have in the map waiting in Beta, in play, than rotting in a Workshop.


VS: The Melting Pot seems so tucked away now, and new map activity there has plummeted
MrB: It's been 10 days since the changed structure has been in place. The focus of the move is to bring the attention of early development onto making a map draft, rather than discussing ideas that often lead to nothing substantial.
VS: Is it? I feel that's not conducive to first-time mapmakers, which you should be promoting. Many maps have started out as just text on a page, then develop into a draft.

VS: I respect your Foreman decisions, but I also feel responsible to say when I think something's not quite right. I think a re-haul of the system may be in order
MrB: Like I said, it's been 10 days since the change has been in place. Let's wait and see how things pan out, and how the "other things in the pipeline" effect things. If after a couple of months you still don;t think things are working, then I'll be open to consider further suggestions for how to improve things.
VS: That's not entirely true, you tried this for a duration of several months before, right? Like I said before, it changed for a reason, and I suspect the same issues that called for a redesign of the Drafting Room/Melting Pot will come up again. How can icons possibly make enough of a change to solve previous problems?

VS: I think it's worth discussing with your fellow cartos.
MrB: Indeed it is. Every change that takes place is subject to discussion long before, during and after the fact.
VS: I would hope.

VS: The Drafting Room left for a reason, and it came back for another, making me think that the system isn't working properly.
MrB: You weren't active in the foundry prior to the big reshuffle that took place over Christmas in 2009, and so are unable to make an informed judgement on how things previously worked. The big change was moving map threads from the top-level Main Foundry into the Gameplay and Graphics workshops. When I merged the old Drafting Room and Map Ideas subforums, I also introduced the Design Brief - which has never worked as it were intended, and in that respect you're right. The reintroduction of the Drafting Room has been made as an easier way to separate map drafts and ideas with potential from those that have none (ie 'Middle Earth/Star Wars/Nintendo/Sperm Bank/Pencil/Plasagna map anyone?'). Some of the plans in the pipeline relate specifically to this aspect of the foundry.
VS: If the Design Brief never worked, then why didn't you change it earlier? There's a fine line between dragging something out unnecessarily long and making a well-informed decision. It seems in most cases you prefer the former, for whatever reason. I'll comment further when I see what these icons do.

VS: The Foundry process crawls along at an incredibly slow pace, some due to the mapmakers, I'll admit, but some due to the cartos as well.
MrB: The speed of the foundry ebbs and flows depending on a number of factors. While some maps do move very slowly, this is predominantly due to the mapmaker. However, it is important to note that none of us are paid for our time here, and so we all fit in our mapmaking or other foundry tasks around our (often hectic) real lives -- Some of us do have lives beyond the internet! However, just because most maps crawl through the foundry doesn;t mean that all maps do. The Quad Cities map is on the brink of the Forge after a quick couple of months, and the First Nations map will probably make it in a quick couple of weeks!
VS: It's sad that a quick map through the Foundry takes "mere months", and First Nations is just a combination of two already quenched maps, so that's hardly an example. And Quad Cities is in the Graphics Workshop - God knows how long it'll be before Final Forge. And I do realize you have a life, I should hope you do, but there are responsibilities to uphold if you accept a volunteer position. If the hands on deck aren't enough to steer the ship, then the Captain needs more crew members.

VS: I've noticed in the Gameplay Workshop, I haven't seen TaCktiX or iancanton comment on a single map in ages.
MrB: I shall dock their wages accordingly On a serious note though, Evil DIMwit is going to be massively missed in this area of the foundry. However, here's a challenge for you: when was the last time you posted an *in-depth* analysis of the gameplay of a map? Gameplay is one of the hardest things to comment on - even more-so when your insight is ignored or otherwise disregarded. I would encourage more and more people to spend more time thinking about how maps work than thinking of witty one-liners. If your post makes no contribution towards map development, then it is probably not a post worth making. Anyway, this thread is supposed to be about the Drafting Room.
VS: And yet I find MarshalNey is quite consistent in that area, as well as EvilD when he was on the force. I'll admit, in-depth analyses aren't easy, but I dare say I have done it before on multiple occasions, though mostly in the map's early stages to make the populous aware of the map and so that major gameplay edits that may affect the concept can be hammered out. And don't give me crap about going off-topic, please, this is quite relevant to the change in the Foundry.

VS: In the Graphics Workshop, maps are held up by the most frivolous edits, and other times the mapmaker's style is completely de-railed.
MrB: This is an interesting topic that may be worthy of further discussion elsewhere. This thread is supposed to be about the Drafting Room.
VS: Yes, yes it is worth discussing. I hope you talk to your Graphics people about this. And are you trying to find a reason to ban me? Seriously...

VS: In Final Forge, XML stamps are extremely slow for no apparent reason, considering many maps are waiting a long time even though Forza gave the OK already.
MrB: There is more to the XML and Beta stamping than the check that Forza very kindly carries out for us.
VS: Like what?

VS: My suggestion is to add more cartos
MrB: I've already mentioned that Evil DIMwit is going to be missed - in part due to the dearth of decent and regular gameplay commentators around the place. This has been a persistent problem in these parts - for some reason people seem to forget that the purpose of a map is to play a good game. This element aside, I'm pretty happy with the balance of the team at the moment. Way back in the day there was a single Cartographer... when I was a foundry newb that had increased to 3 but dropped back to 2 for some time. There are now 8 fully-blue cartography assistants - any more and we may as well make everybody who posts a carto!
VS: Har de har... There being only 2 cartos back in your day doesn't justify having a lack today, even if there are more now. Needs change, MrBenn. And I'm fully aware of the importance of gameplay. If you don't think the job's getting done, you could always post in the Gameplay Workshop for a change

VS: [and to] structure the Foundry on a step-by-step basis rather than a categorical basis (thus the graphics, gameplay, etc. are developed simultaneously).
MrB: Even before we had the different workshops, gameplay was supposed to be approved before the graphics. It's nonsense to suggest otherwise. For the most part, I agree that the two elements can be developed simultaneously, but too often people forget that the aesthetics of a map must be utterly subservient to gameplay. Without this differentiation, then we'll be back to the awkward times where mapmakers would "finish" their graphics with imperfect gameplay, and this impasses more critical than foundry drudgery.
VS: For the most part, gameplay and graphics go hand in hand. Graphics give clarity to the gameplay and the gameplay and concept help to develop the graphics. I think by allowing comments of all types, the Foundry will be more welcoming to other potential commenters. And having a step-by-step organization of the Foundry doesn't necessarily have to come to finished graphics and unfinished gameplay if structured carefully. Even so, minor graphical edits to clarify the new gameplay changes is by no means detrimental to the map's future.

VS: Also, I think polls need to play more of a part in a map's development, especially at the very beginning, because if no one's gonna be interested enough to follow the map through the grueling process of the Foundry, is it worth it?
MrB: Polls across the site (not just in the foundry) will never give a balanced view. You allude to the possibility of "weeding" maps at the initial development stages - this is exactly the purpose of the Drafting Room... but instead of allowing a whimsical poll to decide whether or not a map will make the grade, the Senior Cartographers will be expected to use their expereince and professional judgement to make that call.
VS: But if only the cartos like the map, why allow it to continue? Polls will get people more easily involved, allowing them to simply vote than taking the time to comment, if they're feeling lazy.

To sum up, the focus needs to be on the mapmakers and the freely-choosing commenters, not the Cartographers.

TaCktiX wrote:I'm offended that you say I'm not posting. I will admit my post rate is not one/day in map topics. That is intentional. I am not a "follow every map" or even a "follow a few maps" CA, and I never have been. I intentionally pop into a map, typically mid-stage, toss at it all of my first impressions AFTER it's gotten some revision work done to it, and see what the mapmaker's responses are. I was convinced over to the Gameplay Workshop by virtue of the fact that I always put a fresh perspective on any map I post in. That perspective is borne from having no inherent bias from having followed the map for several weeks or months.

Oh yes, and since I'm not posting at all:
Struggle for Oil, Bucket List
Gondwanaland, Clerical Errors

Cuba and Chinese Civil War I am deliberately not posting on, since I have been solicited in private for my feedback several times.

Though your strategy is not one I agree with, I'll admit to the two you've listed. But your last post of substance was almost a month before the earliest of the two you listed and the one before that was almost another month (I'm not including R&C, for the record):

2 Jan 2010: Colonial Africa:

TaCktiX wrote:The overall idea is solid and there's a good foundation for Gameplay. I'd say my only complaint is the relative mess that the connecting lines and impassables look like. I realize that you do a watercolor draft with a near-finished graphical look, but if you could make the lines cleaner I'm cool wit...

9 Dec 2010: Philadelphia:

TaCktiX wrote:As I'm reading it, you won't ever collect the underdog bonus, as losing conditions trigger with each territory conquering. I'm reading it as "less than 4 and you're gone," yet the underdogs reward 1, 2, and 3 territories each.

And neither of these are astounding, in comparison to the ones you've listed, so you can't say my accusation is without merit, TaCktiX.

Cheers,
Sully

Victor Sullivan wrote:Natty: Polls are not useless because they're "disregarded by cartos" (which they aren't). Polls are useless because they provide next to no value whatsoever to the mapmaker.
VS: Okay, so you're saying they aren't useless but they are? I'm not following your logic here...

Wow. You're being intentionally daft here? Read that sentence 10 more times, or as many times as it takes for it to make sense to you...

Victor Sullivan wrote:Natty: The only situation where polls can be even remotely useful is when you have a map draft and you want to know if there's enough support for it to go through. Even for map drafts, the situation varies - not every map needs a poll. If a poll becomes mandatory, it quickly becomes even less useful.
VS: This is exactly what the polls would be used for. If a poll becomes mandatory, how does that lessen its value?

Because not all maps need a poll. We have been able to evaluate the support of a map just fine without polls in most cases. Cartographers don't make decisions based on if they personally like a map, they take in account other people's opinions.

Victor Sullivan wrote:Natty: As for pointing out flaws in the new system, come on, it's only been a few days, there's no way you can make any objective evaluation of the merits or flaws of the new system vs. old.
VS: But this is the old system, and it clearly didn't work before.

Things change. This is not the old system, apart from the drafting room/melting pot division. I dare say the old system had other flaws that kept it from working (having Main Foundry, which was both workshops, clogged up the system which made it harder to move maps ahead from the drafting room)...

Victor Sullivan wrote:Natty: The foundry process is slow. This is a fact of life. As long as it keeps being run by volunteer power, I don't see any rehaul or redesign changing that. And do we really want maps to come out any faster? Already, there are often so many maps in beta at the same time, that they have to compete for attention among the players. If maps came out faster, it would mean more flaws would go unnoticed. More good maps escaping the notice of the general public.
VS: That's why I suggested more cartos - more quickness, but same efficiency. And it's better to have in the map waiting in Beta, in play, than rotting in a Workshop.

Do we really want maps to come out any faster? Already, there are often so many maps in beta at the same time, that they have to compete for attention among the players. If maps came out faster, it would mean more flaws would go unnoticed. More good maps escaping the notice of the general public.

(I'm posting this again because you completely ignored it the first time.)

That's because 95% of my work in the Melting Pot happened with the immediate IM consultation of Industrial Helix. Every single map that got moved to Gameplay Workshop had both of our consent. Just because people aren't posting doesn't mean they're not involved. It just means they aren't involved enough for your tastes.

Before the thread dissolves into flaming and baiting, I'd like to draw people's attention to the fact that I've added a poll to this thread. I'd also like to quote a good friend of mine:

But just to add some context, I've seen dozens of polls like this in the past 18 months in the Foundry, and it is very rare to see a map receive less than 50% support. Even the most ridiculous, sperm-donation-room, Atlanta-zoo-copying, Russian roulette maps get a bunch of "I love it" votes simply because a lot of folks around here think that any and every map idea should be made regardless of the fact that the map is nothing more than a picture of a pencil. This poll doesn't mean the map can't improve, but it does suggest that are a lot of doubters who will need to be convinced.

*eagerly awaits the poll*

EDIT: Whoops, accidentally edited my post and changed the title, so I changed it back and added a [Poll] tag for MrBenn's future poll.

"I've abstained from voting?" Haha! The oxymoronic-ness!

Even so, I'd like to point out, the polls weren't my main point. You should stay more on-topic MrBenn But seriously, though the polls seem to have gotten the most attention from my statement, my other points were more important, and I'd prefer the stress not be taken off of those points and onto the polls, though my polls post still has merit. TaCktiX, I won't comment further and have this turn into flaming/baiting like MrBenn said. Would you care to comment on my rebuttal, Mr. Foreman?

Sigh... It's unfortunate that my "Foundry Concerns" have been taken so harshly, as attacks rather than concerns/suggestions. I never meant it that way, it's not my motive to piss of every carto, and I'll admit, I got rather heated myself. I'd very much like to cool down and discuss the issues I've raised like gentlemen.

Cheers,
Sully

In defense of Tacktix, we talked about every map that passed through the melting pot just about everyday over IM. I did a majority of the posting, but they were usually conglomorations of both mine and tacktix ideas. As for his performance in the gameplay workshop, he's been active and has been posting. We've also discussed maps privately.

As for the graphics workshop, I'm working on it with red and Isaiah. The graphics workshop is, by far, the slowest in my opinion and most in need of help. To start, we've now got three people working it instead of two. A lot of it depends on the mapmaker, however. If the mapmaker is familiar enough with what is required of a map then that helps a lot. Knowing to not have names and numbers obscured by borders or to avoid pixelation goes a long way. When I am confronted with a map where I have to spell out every territory that is obscured by something or doesn't fit, I wait for my day off in the week of work to make a post. Yes, I have a day job as do most. For those who know to avoid these things, I hope to be able to reward them with a speedy time in the graphics workshop, three eyes on the workshop will certainly help this.

And there is something to be said for 'nitpicking' because it needs to be done. Making a map requires someone who has an attention to detail and if that person is lack said quality, then that's going to cause them to spend some time being corrected and recorrected. Names need to be clear, the map needs to be vischecked, things need to be arranged in a manner which is both visually attractive and supportive of gameplay. These things take time. Have you ever taken on a real art project? They take months, even when you have a professor and peers on site to aid you. It takes longer on a message board!

Furthermore, the foundry is quick relaxed in tolerating multiple submissions... not all maps are good, this is a fact. Yes, you can put numbers on anything and play it, but CC has higher standards than many of the other sites out there. Get on some similar sites and look at their (sometimes stolen from CC) maps. Yeah, they work. But they don't consistently look as good. If a person on CC makes a bad map, we're quite good with giving them a second chance and letting them work it out. This also adds to the length of time a map is in the foundry.

On some points I agree with you, yes it takes too long for a map to get through. And we're working on it. The return of the drafting room is hopefully going to lighten the load of those first stages maps. Like I said, I want to get the graphics workshop moving more quickly and I'm working with Red and Isaiah to do this. The changes are not even a month old, so relax a little bit. As for the FF... there's a lot that goes on behind the scenes there that I've only been recently aware of. Yeah, Forza checks the XML, but its also checked by other people too. It has to be perfect because people are going to be pissed if a map says a territory attacks somewhere and it doesn't.

Hello hi how's it going. Yeah I've been watching this thread for a while now but have been hesitant to post since I've felt like an outlaw in the foundry ever since a certain someone *cough cough* leaked a certain private conversation to Marshal. I sent an extremely earnest reply which never got a reply. Still kinda feel like...yeah, whats up with that?

Lord knows I have my fair share of foundry concerns but the last thing I want to do is create needless un-professional drama, but I would like to air out some of my concerns.

I actually like the return of the drafting room. I think it does a good job of separating actual maps that have potential from "Derp let's make a map of a guitar!" (apologize if that was an actual idea I just tried to pick something at random rather than single out someones actual idea) Also I have no opinion on polls, I use them when I need to which is rare. My concerns with the foundry largely revolve around the role of the mods. It'd be different if they were established completely as a boss. I'm not saying better but at least I'd know how to respond to them when I disagree with them. As it is it's a weird shifting scale of comparing what the general users think with what the mods think, vs. what I think. For example California right now. A lot of people like the background as it is. It's not amazing but it's no better or worse than a sunburst design. Mr. Benn has consistently Stated that he wants to see it changed, but he's the only person saying that. There are plenty of users and myself who think the background is fine how it is but because that one other person is Mr. Benn I know that nothing is going to happen with that map until I change it.

Also there seems to be a lot of indecision within mods that needs to get resolved before it comes down to us. California again being a great example of that. TheNobodies80 stickies it and say "looks good this should be in the forge with in the week"... so the map sits around for like a month then Mr. Benn comes on and says "yeah you pretty much need to redo the whole thing" It's like SERIOUSLY WTF??? get it together before you start teasing me like that! situations like that make me feel completely disrespected and lied to.

I don't think map makers get treated with the appropriate amount of respect. We don't get paid so instead we should have a license to some creative freedom!

and other times the mapmaker's style is completely de-railed.

I have a strong suspicion that Victor wrote this line thinking about me, but if not I feel that it applies. I'm sick to death of defending my way of working on maps. yeah they have similarities but that's my signature. I want a Bison King map to look like a Bison King map Why do I have to keep defending that??? Why is that Wrong?!?!?. A lot of people like my work. I shouldn't be punished for wanting to show some consistency between my own maps. It would be different if I was responsible for more than what I work on myself, but as it is having 4 maps on the site that would look kind of similar should not be that big of a deal.

Whatever that's how I feel. I really don't want to drive an even bigger cleft between myself and the Cartos than there already seems to be. I want to have a healthy working relationship with you guys but I feel like we need to reach some sort of mutual understanding.

The CA's do a LOT of internal communication, far more than they used to back in the day (think 2008). So that "blast from the side" was the consensus decision after we all talked about it. While we communicate better among ourselves, we don't tend to communicate that we communicated to everyone outside. For cases where a CA "went back" on what they said, it's because one of us brought up valid points that that CA didn't think about. While it seems like a stab in the back, it's honestly to make sure the map is as good as it can be.

Well I do have to say this is a far cry from Merciless Wong and "AADOMM is are of full of being elitists!"

Nonetheless, yawn.

The Bison King wrote:Lord knows I have my fair share of foundry concerns but the last thing I want to do is create needless un-professional drama, but I would like to air out some of my concerns.

I'll give you a response even though I'm not in the blue team. Perhaps you can benefit from the view of another mapmaker.

I actually like the return of the drafting room. I think it does a good job of separating actual maps that have potential from "Derp let's make a map of a guitar!"

There have been at least two attempts at a map of a guitar. In the last year or so. Probably more before that...

It's like a weird SFW version of rule 34: Whatever you can think of, there's a silly map thread of it somewhere. If there isn't, someone will soon post one.

As it is it's a weird shifting scale of comparing what the general users think with what the mods think, vs. what I think. For example California right now. A lot of people like the background as it is. It's not amazing but it's no better or worse than a sunburst design. Mr. Benn has consistently Stated that he wants to see it changed, but he's the only person saying that. There are plenty of users and myself who think the background is fine how it is but because that one other person is Mr. Benn I know that nothing is going to happen with that map until I change it.

The thing is, the mods have been chosen in their position because they have been in the foundry for a long time, and they know exactly what's required from maps... the CC standards and all. Most of the time, they do listen to the public opinion. Other times, they make decisions based on their collective experience. If there are 10 people who have little graphical expertise who say "I like this, looks great!" and 1 with lots of graphical experience who says "See, here's the problems with your work" then ask yourself: who should you listen? Who's advice is the most helpful to your personal development as an artist?

so the map sits around for like a month then Mr. Benn comes on and says "yeah you pretty much need to redo the whole thing" It's like SERIOUSLY WTF??? get it together before you start teasing me like that! situations like that make me feel completely disrespected and lied to.

Meh, these things happen. As long as the map is not in live play, it's never too late for changes. You should just relax and embrace the zen nature of mapmaking: don't make maps just for that moment when you get to play them, savor the whole process. After that map is quenched, wait a year, and then tell me you don't wish the map had spent more time in the foundry... time gives perspective.

I don't think map makers get treated with the appropriate amount of respect. We don't get paid so instead we should have a license to some creative freedom!

Mapmaking is not art, as such. There's very little room for personal expression. The little that there is, go nuts with it, but the truth is that we're working within a pretty tight framework here.

From a design perspective, creativity is overrated. For example, it might be damn creative and artistic to make a completely white map. You could say it represents the collective anguish of mankind. People from all the chic art galleries in Paris might come post in your thread that they love your map, and want to see it in play. But it still wouldn't be a good map and the mods would be idiots to quench it.

and other times the mapmaker's style is completely de-railed.

I have a strong suspicion that Victor wrote this line thinking about me, but if not I feel that it applies. I'm sick to death of defending my way of working on maps. yeah they have similarities but that's my signature. I want a Bison King map to look like a Bison King map Why do I have to keep defending that??? Why is that Wrong?!?!?. A lot of people like my work. I shouldn't be punished for wanting to show some consistency between my own maps. It would be different if I was responsible for more than what I work on myself, but as it is having 4 maps on the site that would look kind of similar should not be that big of a deal.

Ok, this is another instance of design vs. art. You know, if you just want to express yourself artistically, another medium would be much more suitable for it, than CC maps.

"Your work". See, this is exactly the attitude you need to lose. Fact is, in CC, the map is never just "your work", it's the work of the collective - each one who posts in your thread, all of the mods, all are partially responsible for the map. Of course, you do the largest work, and you have a leading role in the mapmaking... but let's just say, if the map you're making was a country, you'd be the president rather than the king. (the foundry mods would be the government. )

It took me a while to realize this, as well. It's hard stuff. I'm also an artistic person, and it's hard to compromise with my work - but I make the effort. I don't always succeed perhaps, but I try. I have other outlets for pure artistic expression with no limits. CC is not one of them. CC is rather a chance to hone my skills in design, teamwork, etc.

Also, there's the thing that the style of a map should be utterly subservient to the theme and gameplay. If you have a "personal style" that you wish to show in your maps, it will interfere with this. You need to be more flexible! You don't want to end up as a one trick pony, do you?


That's all, and I hope you don't take any of this the wrong way. I just hope I might steer you away from mistakes I have made myself, once upon a time.

The Bison King wrote:....Also there seems to be a lot of indecision within mods that needs to get resolved before it comes down to us. California again being a great example of that. TheNobodies80 stickies it and say "looks good this should be in the forge with in the week"... so the map sits around for like a month then Mr. Benn comes on and says "yeah you pretty much need to redo the whole thing" It's like SERIOUSLY WTF??? get it together before you start teasing me like that! situations like that make me feel completely disrespected and lied to.

Since you're "quoting" me...let me clarify this thing. First of all I didn't say what you posted, this is what I said:

About graphics, i personally think that when borders and connection will be fixed the map could be ready for a short sticky period and then moving to the FF.

That's different. I just expressed my personal opinion and the decision to stick the map is exactly the confirmation of that. Change a thread to sticky doesn't mean that it's going to be stamped. Sometimes it happens, but it's not a rule. Sometimes maps are stamped without a sticky period, sometimes they are stickied and then changed again to standard. The sticky option is just something to say: "Hey look at me!" - So, don't think there's always a connection between stamps and sticky threads.
Now, I was really happy with the map, technically speaking, but I know that I'm not a California expert so I made a call.
The call, instead of confirm my thoughts, led me in the opposite direction. And... if you let me say this...luckily, since i forgot to check some things at that time!
Anyway I'm sorry if my words have possibly caused you think about something not true. My fault.

Well first to Natty

There have been at least two attempts at a map of a guitar. In the last year or so. Probably more before that...

It's like a weird SFW version of rule 34: Whatever you can think of, there's a silly map thread of it somewhere. If there isn't, someone will soon post one.

eh, whoops. Oh well.

Mapmaking is not art, as such. There's very little room for personal expression. The little that there is, go nuts with it, but the truth is that we're working within a pretty tight framework here.

From a design perspective, creativity is overrated. For example, it might be damn creative and artistic to make a completely white map. You could say it represents the collective anguish of mankind. People from all the chic art galleries in Paris might come post in your thread that they love your map, and want to see it in play. But it still wouldn't be a good map and the mods would be idiots to quench it.

It's not like I'm trying to do something crazy experimental. I'm not making avant garde cubist maps. I just want be able to come up with an end product that I'm happy with, and not be forced into creating something that pleases a mod at the expense of my vision. Besides creativity is NOT over rated ESPECIALLY from a design perspective.

"Your work". See, this is exactly the attitude you need to lose. Fact is, in CC, the map is never just "your work", it's the work of the collective - each one who posts in your thread, all of the mods, all are partially responsible for the map. Of course, you do the largest work, and you have a leading role in the mapmaking... but let's just say, if the map you're making was a country, you'd be the president rather than the king. (the foundry mods would be the government. )

Man give your self more credit. We work really hard on these maps. Coming up with the idea, and doing ALL the work is a world of difference between posting "I think you should move that border to the left" With out the people actually making the maps this site wouldn't be anything.

Besides I like my Salmon analogy more. The salmon being the map maker trying to reach his native spawning grounds in the final forge, so that he can give birth to his map there. The mods and posters should be the river that gently guides them to their goal.

Also, there's the thing that the style of a map should be utterly subservient to the theme and gameplay. If you have a "personal style" that you wish to show in your maps, it will interfere with this.

This is the one which actually get's me ticked because theme is exactly as subjective as style. It's just an opinion no matter how you look at it. You can't prove that a style doesn't fit a theme. Some people will think it fits, while others wont. Doesn't mean one group is more right or wrong as the other.

Now for TheNobdodies:

I just expressed my personal opinion and the decision to stick the map is exactly the confirmation of that.

Ok so how am I supposed to know when a Mod is just expressing his opinion or passing down an official mod mandate? This is exaclty what I mean when I say:

"My concerns with the foundry largely revolve around the role of the mods."

When am I allowed to say no to the mods and when can't I? because it always seems to be changing.

Change a thread to sticky doesn't mean that it's going to be stamped. Sometimes it happens, but it's not a rule. Sometimes maps are stamped without a sticky period, sometimes they are stickied and then changed again to standard. The sticky option is just something to say: "Hey look at me!" - So, don't think there's always a connection between stamps and sticky threads.

So basically there are no rules and anything can happen at any time? That definitely qualifies as a foundry concern. I never know what to expect. Things that seemed concrete are always shifting.

Anyway I'm sorry if my words have possibly caused you think about something not true. My fault.

Thanks.

There have been a multitude of times when the Foundry Voice (and by this, I refer to the so-called-elitism that wants nothing but the best maps) has stirred its head - most notably this occurs when maps are on the brink of the Forge. While there are more recent examples I could refer to, I think RedBaron0's Japan map is an excellent example of a map that transformed from a duckling to beautiful swan as a result of this kind of scrutiny. There are a number of other maps that have similarly gone through quite major changes before acquiring the Foundry Brand - and you can be assured that the each member of the foundry team who has made a map has also been confronted with the Foundry Voice at some time... It's not easy, and definitely not comfortable - but it's a path that we have all trodden. The foundry keeps pushing for improvement, no matter how good you get!

"My concerns with the foundry largely revolve around the role of the mods."

When am I allowed to say no to the mods and when can't I? because it always seems to be changing.

There is mostly some room for reasoned argument and debate, although there are no hard-and-fast definitive rules precisely because each map and mapmaker is so different. I agree that it can sometimes be difficult to tread (or discern) the path between personal opinion and representation of a wider and more authoritative voice, and can see how this causes confusion - particularly when each of us see things from a different perspective.

There are plenty of times when I have put aside my own personal views in favour of wider consensus - but I think the key to this communication is to make it clear (as a team) when we are speaking singly or collectively... there's some discussion about this behind the scenes - so please be assured that it is a recognised concern that we are trying to find some kind of solution to.