Conquer Club

I think this needs to be cleared up once and for all. Lets say we have a map being developed in the foundry and 15 or so people stop by to say they like it.

Then, 3 or 5 people show up saying that it has no appeal and want its development to stop. Andy and Keyogi also both personally don't like the map very much.

Who wins? Do Andy and Keyogi with minimal support carry enough weight that the map is denied to the group that wants to play it? Or is 15 foundry members enough to keep the map around at least until it is built to a finished state?

coughworld0.5cough

but yeah, i think if half the people like the map, then let it stay.
No one will leave the site just because of a bad map. if you dont like it, dont play it. there are many other people on the site that would love to play the map.

I dunno, I just find it weird that gimmicky maps are often shut down, even when they have appeal. Conquer 4 should be released in my opinion.

Well I don't like the map but I never said so in the thread as I find that disrespectful. I also think it won't work in terms of playability. Think of how many people agree with Andy and Keyogi but do not voice their opinion because they see that the mods already gave the thumbs down. I am one of them.

KILL THE MAP!

spiesr wrote:KILL THE MAP!

So in general the map should die even though the vocal minorities on the support side outnumber the vocal minorities on the kill side 2 to 1?

Coleman wrote:

spiesr wrote:KILL THE MAP!

So in general the map should die even though the vocal minorities on the support side outnumber the vocal minorities on the kill side 2 to 1?

Yep

spiesr wrote:

Coleman wrote:

spiesr wrote:KILL THE MAP!

So in general the map should die even though the vocal minorities on the support side outnumber the vocal minorities on the kill side 2 to 1?

Yep

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY

Ruben Cassar wrote:Well I don't like the map but I never said so in the thread as I find that disrespectful. I also think it won't work in terms of playability. Think of how many people agree with Andy and Keyogi but do not voice their opinion because they see that the mods already gave the thumbs down. I am one of them.

I haven't been here very long, so I don't know this, but has Andy ever quenched a map which he didn't initially (or ever) like?

I don't think mods' opinions should have any extra value in the early stages. Unless its a map which will cause technical problems for the site, the opinion is just that - an opinion. In the later stages of development, if a mod gives a good objective reason for killing the map (i.e. too many dissenting votes, etc), then that would mean a lot more, and the supporters would probably need to make a strong argument or shut down development to not waste time and effort. Of course, if the mods will actually refuse to quench a map based on personal opinion, then that would be different, but I doubt that would ever be the case.

You mention playability being a factor in the World 0.5 map's eventual failure. I agree that lack of playability would be a very strong, if not the strongest, argument to kill a map. However, are you thinking unplayable more as "bad for all of the elite players and the standard strategies", or "luck is going to be the primary factor, so it's not fun" (or similar)? As I stated in that thread, not everyone is playing for the win. It's possible that there are enough players who will play a map just because the map gives them a chance to make crazy moves and have a unique experience.

While experienced players can say that a map has horrible playability, and be right most of the time, we don't know how much of an effect that will have on the overall appeal of the map to the majority of CC players.

I think it would be great if there was some sort of playtesting system, even if it was unofficial and/or off-site. A group of players with different goals in mind when playing a game of CC, who are willing to test maps starting from about halfway through development. That would provide some conclusive evidence of both playability and its effect on appeal for a map. I have no idea how we would set that up though, so for now it's just an idea.

Coleman wrote:I think this needs to be cleared up once and for all. Lets say we have a map being developed in the foundry and 15 or so people stop by to say they like it.

Then, 3 or 5 people show up saying that it has no appeal and want its development to stop. Andy and Keyogi also both personally don't like the map very much.

Who wins? Do Andy and Keyogi with minimal support carry enough weight that the map is denied to the group that wants to play it? Or is 15 foundry members enough to keep the map around at least until it is built to a finished state?

I never called for development of small world to stop. I simply implied that it was a steaming pile of crap.

Spockers wrote:

Coleman wrote:I think this needs to be cleared up once and for all. Lets say we have a map being developed in the foundry and 15 or so people stop by to say they like it.

Then, 3 or 5 people show up saying that it has no appeal and want its development to stop. Andy and Keyogi also both personally don't like the map very much.

Who wins? Do Andy and Keyogi with minimal support carry enough weight that the map is denied to the group that wants to play it? Or is 15 foundry members enough to keep the map around at least until it is built to a finished state?

I never called for development of small world to stop. I simply implied that it was a steaming pile of crap.

You mostly just play Classic anyways. I could see why you might not like it. But your opinion shouldn't mean I can't play it.

I don't like most of the maps beeing made, since they are too un-original. San fransisco ( Can't spell ), great lakes, name them...Well I see a lot of Real place maps who are almost all the same to me. I love originality, uniqueness...

That doesn't make every ''real'' maps a ''steaming pile of crap'' to quote spokers that I won't name. It doesn't appeal to you. Then don't play it, and give your oppinion somewhere else.


As far as I know, I don't think Keyogi or Andy have the final word based on their oppinion. I am SURE they don't like EVERY maps.

If those do hate a map, but EVERY CC player beside those like it, I am sure they would have to allow it ( Considering it's playable). Unless they want a thousand threads about them in the flames forum.


Lack has the final word, anyway.

freezie wrote:I don't like most of the maps beeing made, since they are too un-original. San fransisco ( Can't spell ), great lakes, name them...Well I see a lot of Real place maps who are almost all the same to me. I love originality, uniqueness....

then i guess you love my Age of Merchants map


on a more serious note we have a dilema here.

lets say somebody make a map with horible gameplay and sucky graphics. yet he somehow gets many people that suport the map. will the mapget quenched? do all maps need to have great gameplay? maybe some people want idiotic gameplay like plasagna.

i realy don't know what to say. not quenching such a map despite it's many supporters is dictatorship.

quenching it means the whole foundry process gets flushed down the toilet drain.

DiM wrote:
then i guess you love my Age of Merchants map


on a more serious note we have a dilema here.

lets say somebody make a map with horible gameplay and sucky graphics. yet he somehow gets many people that suport the map. will the mapget quenched? do all maps need to have great gameplay? maybe some people want idiotic gameplay like plasagna.

i realy don't know what to say. not quenching such a map despite it's many supporters is dictatorship.

quenching it means the whole foundry process gets flushed down the toilet drain.

I love the concept of no bonuses for having a continent, but having certain territories, makes a unique gameplay, but I guess I was too tired to understand how it works. Maybe I should try again and give my support...Unless I really can't understand.


As for a non-playable map that everyone wants...It's a dillema, I agree. But then one of the mods, Lack at worst, will have to ask: how is this playable? The conceptor not beeing able to answer, would have to drop the map. I wouldn't be mad if a map get flushed for not beeing playable, even though the concept was great.

The line between general agreement and playability of a map is thin..That's why the foundry team is there.

Coleman if we follow your logic then Qwert's map should be quenched since he got the majority of the votes in his poll. As you can see that is not happening and to be honest Eastern Front is kilometres ahead of World 0.5 or whatever it's called...too much time has been spent on a project which will never see the light of day.

Ruben Cassar wrote:Coleman if we follow your logic then Qwert's map should be quenched since he got the majority of the votes in his poll. As you can see that is not happening and to be honest Eastern Front is kilometres ahead of World 0.5 or whatever it's called...too much time has been spent on a project which will never see the light of day.

Obviously if there is a technical reason not to release it, like in the case of Eastern Front then it shouldn't be released. Eastern Front wasn't released because people didn't like it, it wasn't released because there were legitimate graphical errors.

Coleman wrote:

Ruben Cassar wrote:Coleman if we follow your logic then Qwert's map should be quenched since he got the majority of the votes in his poll. As you can see that is not happening and to be honest Eastern Front is kilometres ahead of World 0.5 or whatever it's called...too much time has been spent on a project which will never see the light of day.

Obviously if there is a technical reason not to release it, like in the case of Eastern Front then it shouldn't be released. Eastern Front wasn't released because people didn't like it, it wasn't released because there were legitimate graphical errors.

yes i agree there were graphical errors that qwert could have easily solved but since he had the "MAIORITY" support isn't this kind of a breaking of the democracy system? again i have to propose my earlier example.

bad gameplay + bad gfx + approval of majority. will it get quenched or not?

DiM wrote:bad gameplay + bad gfx + approval of majority. will it get quenched or not?

If it has majority approval, though, how do we know it's bad?

Evil DIMwit wrote:

DiM wrote:bad gameplay + bad gfx + approval of majority. will it get quenched or not?

If it has majority approval, though, how do we know it's bad?

here is a map. bad gfx and bad gameplay. and yet somehow i'm sure this map would be perfect for a buildup game. i'm certain i could convince at least 40-50 or more people to vote for such a map.
would it get quenched?

DiM wrote:

Evil DIMwit wrote:

DiM wrote:bad gameplay + bad gfx + approval of majority. will it get quenched or not?

If it has majority approval, though, how do we know it's bad?

here is a map. bad gfx and bad gameplay. and yet somehow i'm sure this map would be perfect for a buildup game. i'm certain i could convince at least 40-50 or more people to vote for such a map.
would it get quenched?

If you can really convince more than half of the foundry to vote for that... I would be dramatically surprised.

Firstly, did you really need to quote the entire post directly above yours, including the large picture?


Secondly, DIM is trying to make a point that nobody is answering. The map was just an example, as you well know, what it looks like is beside the point.

Evil DIMwit wrote:If you can really convince more than half of the foundry to vote for that... I would be dramatically surprised.

i'm 100% sure i can convince 30-40 people to vote for something like that. not necessarily veteran foundry members but none the less members of this site. i'm especially talking about build-up fans. i bet they would simply love a map where they get 100 or even more armies per turn.

the point is for you and me and most of the foundry that map is stupid. and yet some people would love it.
if i mesage those people and convince them to vote yes in a "quench it" poll i would most certainly get a majority for yes. will the map be quenched then?

the point is, do we have a democracy where the majority decides? or do we have a sort of elite dictatorship where only a few foundry members can decide if a map is good enough for the quench?

Point or not, that particular example wouldn't work because someone is going to get to go first and get +100 units more then enough to kill everyone. serious game play flaw

Second, there are intersecting lines that I am assuming are the attack routes where they don't need to intersect. significant graphics flaw

The map that people brought up when I brought up my scenario World 0.5 has a dedicated author who is willing to work with the supporting foundry members to create something polished.

There is a huge difference between that and photographing dog crap with a petition signed.

no, because of andy, keyogi, and lack. Unless, they make you change the map around before quenching it.

If it answers the basic map-making sticky, I think they have to give it a chance if it's what people want. That exemple has NO way it would be playable. World 0.5 is playable. And follow a theme.

The difference is there.