Conquer Club

the effort and time all the cartographers put in is greatly appreciated by the community as a whole. there have been some slightly vindictive and personal attacks recently which seemed to me highly ungrateful in this regard and which i and a number of others found quite distasteful. id like firstly to point out that this is entirely unacceptable.

however...

there is a clear pattern emerging in the development of a great deal of the newer maps, and this sentiment is commonly shared, amongst the upper echelons of players at least. what it basically amounts to is style over substance.

from the outside looking in you are all trying to outdo each other, if not with increasingly flash graphics then with increasingly elabourate playing schemes (i know some really liked AoM, and a little experimentation is of course a good thing, but aside from that an awful lot of the newer maps have weird and quite frankly superfluous shit in them that categorically detracts from the gameplay).

i suppose this is an attempt to bridge the gap between 'us' and 'you'

common line of counter argument being something along the lines of: if you dont like it then dont play it

thats all very well, but i figured i might as well try and post something more constructive and redress the issues that have come to light recently.

knee jerkers please stand clear - lets keep it constructive and on topic. what do we all think of this?

Well, i guess i'll be the first to dunk in....
my maps would have to be in the firing line, of course, are they not?

very much so, yes.

i'll reiterate again though, i dont mean this as a personal attack on any of the cartographers and i found the reaction to WM recently quite abhorrent

khazalid wrote:i found the reaction to WM recently quite abhorrent

As someone who has been highly critical of the new canada map today on a number of threads at no stage was I critical of WM, if anything I was complimentary of him and I did not post in the flame wars thread as I too was unimpressed by the comments in there. I'm assuming Khaz was not referring to me but in case other people interpret it that way, I wanted to clarify.

no rebel, cant remember anyone specifically, just saw a lot of stuff that was way OTT and downright nasty

I enjoy most of the maps, but ill admit some styles dont fit right with me... the ones that look like an old 1993 videogame.. i dont want the mention any names here

I prefer maps that are clean and stylish

i'm still trying to wrap my mind around the idea that fellow CC'ers might read something written in the forums, reflect on it seriously, and possibly even adjust their thinking/practices. maybe i spend too much time in flame wars......(and of course leave it to the brilliant khaz to spur just such a dialogue amidst the blight of banality that is the CC forum)

i'll say this: i think Cairns WK is a pimp. i love his maps. Rail USA and Battle of Actium are wildly creative, and Rail is quite fun in my opinion. the Cairns map and Pearl Harbor are also sweet. Shadowmakers has done some incredible work as well--king of mts stands out, as does great lakes. plenty of others i haven't mentioned. of course, some of these maps fit singles better than team games and vice versa. the important thing for me is: creativity. i've had tons of friends notice me on CC and say "what's that?" Then i show them all the maps and they freak out. we have some serious talent here, and honestly we ought to celebrate it more.

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

so, i don't have a lot of criticism. keep up the creativity. i for one warmed up to AOM and rail usa quite quickly and i think they are stunning. but khaz is right: keep in mind that substance/excellent gameplay is far more important than originality for its own sake. gimmicks and gadgets are fun, but ultimately they are fluff compared to excellent playability.

one other note: i would like to see a bit more stringent vetting process when it comes to graphics. i like the look of the new canada map, but it is small and hard to see. same goes for midkemia, it might turn out to be a great map, but the words and everything else are so tiny. and berlin looks interesting, but the colors and lines make it difficult to see as well. ummm, bamboo jack is currently blowing my mind so i'll get back to you on that one......

just think about playability, attractive visuals that are also easy to view, and retain your creative drive in the entire process! go cartography goons!

khazalid wrote:very much so, yes.

i'll reiterate again though, i dont mean this as a personal attack on any of the cartographers and i found the reaction to WM recently quite abhorrent

khazalid...care to expand on my maps and why you find them 'off'.
Not taking this as personal attack btw...but it might be helpful if some of you guys and gals who are having problems/issues/challengnes with maps would visit the map foundry to give your two cents worth when the maps are being developed.

cairnswk wrote:

khazalid wrote:very much so, yes.

i'll reiterate again though, i dont mean this as a personal attack on any of the cartographers and i found the reaction to WM recently quite abhorrent

khazalid...care to expand on my maps and why you find them 'off'.
Not taking this as personal attack btw...but it might be helpful if some of you guys and gals who are having problems/issues/challengnes with maps would visit the map foundry to give your two cents worth when the maps are veing developed.

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

While I love all the new map fatures that are coming out I have but one complaint. All these new maps seem to be favoring attack routes over conventional territorys. In my huble opinion not only does it not look as good i also feel as though it distracts from gameplay as it takes a while to follow the lines around the bored. As a result I dont play railUSA anymore nor several other maps that would have been fairly good otherwise

Hi khaz, thanks for taking the time to post, and for your recognition that attacks against individuals are unproductive. To do justice to all that you've written, let me address point by point...

khazalid wrote:there is a clear pattern emerging in the development of a great deal of the newer maps, and this sentiment is commonly shared, amongst the upper echelons of players at least. what it basically amounts to is style over substance.

I can speak only for myself - part of the fun of map creation is putting out a great product. I remember that in my first game on Great Lakes somebody typed "this map looks fantastic" in the chat. Every mapmaker wants to see that written about their own product. So yes, style is important.

But I don't think that anybody who has closely followed the production of a map could say that style is more important than game play. It takes weeks to work out the play of a map - identifying dead-ends and bottlenecks, working out bonuses, creating balance at the start of the game, location of unpassable borders, readability of titles, placement of army counts and shadows, use of bombardments/neutrals/one-way attacks, etc. So while as mapmaker I may have final say over style issues, I am at the mercy of the foundry when it comes to game play.

khazalid wrote:from the outside looking in you are all trying to outdo each other, if not with increasingly flash graphics then with increasingly elabourate playing schemes (i know some really liked AoM, and a little experimentation is of course a good thing, but aside from that an awful lot of the newer maps have weird and quite frankly superfluous shit in them that categorically detracts from the gameplay).

I don't get the sense that anybody is trying to out-do each other... we're all pretty friendly, and the bulk of the graphics help/suggestions that I've received has come from the other mapmakers. I think would be more fair to say that we are all trying to come up with something original, both in form and function. Classic has been done - in many variations - and I don't want to redo it again. I want people to play my map because it is BETTER than classic.

khazalid wrote:i suppose this is an attempt to bridge the gap between 'us' and 'you'

Hmm... we're getting at what I see to be the heart of the problem. Read on.

khazalid wrote:common line of counter argument being something along the lines of: if you dont like it then dont play it

Well, that can be said and has been said, and with the increasing number of maps in play it becomes more and more valid, but I would never use this argument. I want people to want to play my maps.

Rather, I would use this counter-argument: if you hate the look and play of a map that has gone through a three to six month foundry process, why didn't you make your opinion known before it went live? As a foundry regular I find it a bit insulting that people never check in here and then 1) criticize the maps the foundry produces and 2) ridicule the people who are working on them.

Because really, what does it take to be a foundry-goer? You click the link, look at some maps, leave your opinions, and you're done... you've just helped steer the direction of a new map. And I guess if anybody hates the map, you are in part responsible. It's like politics: if you don't show up to vote, you have no right to complain later about the guy who won.

So let's drop the "you and us" talk... WE are all users of the site, but only some of us choose to participate in the democratic foundry process.

It's funny, but the users of other forums have branded the foundry-goers as a strange and exclusive breed. I'm guilty of not spending time in the other forums, so if that makes me strange, so be it. I figure if I want to discuss the merits of Ron Paul I can do so in the real world.

well said, i too believe the map makers are under appreciated for the work they do

THANKS GUYS

oaktown...well spoken...ever considered running for office yourself. We have a federal election here is Oz in 3 weeks, you'd beat the competition hands down.

Now...i too am like you. I don't come in here to "beat others" with my graphic abilities. To start with, i use a different product (Fireworks) than what most others use (Photoshop). How could i match someone like Mibi or DiM and WM in those stakes, they have heaps more experience than I, and it shows.

I come in here to offer something different like yourself oaktown...there is only so many versions one can do to the Standard Risk deployment/geography/tactics etc. That is why i developed Rail USA and Pearl Harbor and Valley of the Kings because they offer something different to the community...and i will continue to do this in a creative manner until lackattack or Andy ask me to stop, or i decide to stop first.

I also prefer to spend my time in the map forum where there is good interaction between the community and the "suggestion" and yhes i too get a kick out hearing "good map" or "nice work". Everyone likes to hear that.

At the same time, being a fair person, who is not just a youngun', i also appreciate what others have to say and try to be 99% of the time plyable to their requests, so they feel there is something of them in these maps also.

I stated before, and i agree with Oaktown, that people are always wlecome to come into the foundry and give their two cents worth on the maps in development. But i think it is a bit harsh when those who don't enter the foundry to do so, come in later and complain about some things in maps that have been through a two to three month production process and they don't like or agree with it.

Because of the nature of this site, there are limitations on what can be achieved with the xml that the site uses in conjunction with the graphics. At the smae time, as everyone knows, lackattack is continually upgrading this site with his huge abilities. I have been to the Lux Deluxe Sillysoft site and played their maps. Good gameplay which i understand uses java scripting (please correct me if i have a "my bad" there), but some of those maps are done very quickly, hastily and leave somewhat to be desired. CC has a good growing team of cartographer who help each other through criticism and tutorials and we work as a team to produce a good product....one that continues to build this site and help to grow this community.

I had a very nice compliments which I read in another forum recently...a high user player from Lux Deluxe was interviewed and he commented that Pearl Harbour was one of his favourite maps. And there are lots of people who will say PH sucks or RAIL USA sucks...probably because of their desire for things to remain the same, but this is not the way fo the world. There is always change and evolution.

I encourage all the mapmakers in here to continue what they are doing, and i encourage all the players out there to reach out and adapt a little to expand their thinking.

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

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

But there are new maps, which actually fit well into those requirements:

Italy, France, Montreal v2, Portugal. Nice and crisp, straightforward, yet interesting game play. Can we have more of those?

AndrewB....thanks for the feedback...pitty it didn't happen when these maps were being developed....but onwards...i will answer some of those issues pertinent to my maps....

AndrewB wrote:1.b. Font selection.

I am well aware of the legibility issues with players...i wear glasses myself i have to always put myself in players shoes...if i can't read it, there are going to be others out there who can't read it also.

Color selections. Map designers must make sure that their color do no clash with armies colors, and be nice and pleasant for eye.

i was made well aware of the color issues in my first map and those issues for the colour blind. I don't believe any of my maps fall into this area.

2.a All those bombardments are not adding much playbility-wise. What was achieved with the myriads of bombardments in the Pearl Harbour map?

....A touch of reality for those player who might CHOSE to use that feature. There were anti-aircraft batteries at PH, and they were used. Just because player chose not to use them doesn't mean you can qualify them as superfluous.

2.b. Every map needs to have its essence. Which can be chock points, or critical holdings etc. In the Battle of Actium there is no such thing. Everything can attack pretty much everything... Millions of possible pathways. Boring, very not interesting.

Well at the point of battle that this map was devised for, everyone was pretty much involved with everyone else. Yes there are lots of attacking routes, but i would prefer to think that this adds to the spice of the game.

2.c. Battle of Australia. Why all middle part of map is always neutral? Is there a need for so much of it? How often do they actually get conquered during the game play? And if not often, why are there at all then?

They were initially deployed as neutrals to determine (as this was the first map that deployed so many neutrals and indeed this feature):
1. what the reaction of the players would be to this new feature
2. many of those territories that were deployed as neutrals in the map were historically neutral in their politics.

You obviosuly haven't played this map for a while, as these neutrals have now been removed completely frmo the map for several weeks. I may at some stage re-consider some small number of neutrals being deployed in certain terts to add spice back to the play, which you probably won't enjoy anyway.

2.d. Continent bonuses. In order to make a map, suited to play risk in no cards games, you have to make sure that bonuses are relevant and are feasible to hold. In Battle of Actium, all the continents are huge. Very tough to play no cards.

No card (is this your preference) is not the only consideration or style of play for this community. I think it is unfair of you to think that way in cosderation of other players in this community who chose to not play NO CARDS.

2.e. Some maps are plain obscure: Omaha Beach, Rail USA, Pearl Harbour, Bamboo Jack. Last map is not a map, but some kind of treasure hunting manuscript. There are more words there when countries names.

Don't you mean "than" rather than "when"...
Fair comment, but if it is not to your liking...don't play it. Simple.

But there are new maps, which actually fit well into those requirements:

Italy, France, Montreal v2, Portugal. Nice and crisp, straightforward, yet interesting game play. Can we have more of those?

I can tell you there are more of those coming, and i invite you along into the Foundry to comment on the maps in development. This will no doubt please you.

Nephilim wrote:but khaz is right: keep in mind that substance/excellent gameplay is far more important than originality for its own sake. gimmicks and gadgets are fun, but ultimately they are fluff compared to excellent playability.

one other note: i would like to see a bit more stringent vetting process when it comes to graphics. i like the look of the new canada map, but it is small and hard to see. same goes for midkemia, it might turn out to be a great map, but the words and everything else are so tiny. and berlin looks interesting, but the colors and lines make it difficult to see as well. ummm, bamboo jack is currently blowing my mind so i'll get back to you on that one......

just think about playability, attractive visuals that are also easy to view, and retain your creative drive in the entire process! go cartography goons!

Nephilim...very much appreicate your feedback and support. Of course Kudos is always welcome by all.

I beleive all my maps have good gameplay...and they are all different...thus far...the foundry doesn't lete me forget that i can assure you.

As for Bamboo Jack...you'll find it straight forward...no gimmicks...just a little feature to remember and explore in the attack to and from POW camps, which i beleive is a reality feature.

Also with the river there are certain sections in any river that one cannot cross because of rapids whatever, so i think this is also realistic gameply.
I am sure you'll find this interesting.

Cairns I appreciate the time and effort that you are taking to answer the points here. But I genuinely believe there is one fundemental point that has to be addressed for us all all to start working well together and that is the "them" and "us" issue.

As an outsider I tried commenting on several maps here some weeks ago and I was met with such a reaction from cartographers it prompted me to write a report in the "abuse" forum.

I was told at the time I was overreacting and the foundry loves input from "outsiders" (a foundry regular's word at the time not mine - as I don't think calling us outsiders is fair or reasonable)

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

Since then I have commented on some maps to a greater or lesser extent - I have given a lot of feedback to Gimil's latest map and DiM's as both of these despite my earlier run ins with them have actively sought feedback outside the foundry (my run ins with them may have been a contributing factor) and responded to me directly in the earlier issues I raised - so I was more than happy to help them out. Likewise unit_2 yesterday visited chat and invited us to comment on his map. This I told him I would do once I had read the thread.

Again even with this latest issue on the canada map instead of accepting our detailed honest input the map maker openly challenged me as to why I couldn't see it.

As of now to break down this "them" and "us" attitude that seems to be rampant around here I believe two steps are needed

1/ When new people comment on maps (even if its a dopey comment) welcome their input and bear in mind they may not be too clued in on photoshop etc. There next comment (which will come if they get a positive reaction) may not be so dopey and after a while this guy/girl might not just be making comments they might be making a map.

2/ Don't just wait for others to visit it here - leave the foundry and seek input from outside. gimil and unit_2 have used live chat, DiM has used his sig (useing your sig is not much good, if you never leave the foundry). i made a simple suggestion several weeks ago that fell on deaf ears that i believe would help this - have a stickie thread in general discussion with hyperlinks to all maps in the foundry especially those not quenched yet - maybe with a brief description next to each link. i'm not sure why this was ignored when I previously suggested it but in this context I am throwing it out there again.

I hope these comments are taken as honest constuctive contributions in advancing this process - as that is what they are.

rebelman wrote:I hope these comments are taken as honest constructive contributions in advancing this process - as that is what they are.

yeah look rebelman....i am no stranger to being an outsider....i too had the issues of "you're new here and we don't' think your idea is a good one when i first did CCC" so to some extent i understand where u are coming from.

I can only speak for myself, not other cartographers, but i do encourage them to speak fairly, honestly and without discrimination when newbies (pardon the expression) are about and giving input. However, i cannot offer apologies if they don't listen to what is given as input and the changes made appropriately. i too often receive rebuttals when offering suggestions, so consequently i don't offer them so freely and openly anymore which is a shame in some ways.

as for 1. i used to do it all the time, but less often now, and remember to thank people for their suggestion even if i don't accept it.
And can i say this, we don't always have to agree with people's suggestions when they do make a post. sometimes their suggestion may take the map in a totally different path that what we have in mind for both our capabilities and the design, and sometime "artists" (who can be a temperamental lot anyway, and we are no different here) will not budge from these issues. If the suggestions is valid and a point concerning legibility, color, or any other factor that is going to affect player game play experience, then one has to sometimes fight for a change and the best way to do this is the suggestion of a poll that is worded correctly.

as for 2. i have most of my time taken up with working on my maps and keeping some sort of semblance in here and an eye on the ball STS...so that i get to read 98% of the information and sometimes "guff" that get posted in here. There are also some mapmakers in here who don't have the skill level some of us have and they too need attention.
Just answering this post today has taken several hours to be open and fair to the commentors...they're luck I'm on holidays otherwise, they wouldn't get the same level of response.
So to ask me to come into another forum and do some posting in that forum when most of the time what is written in there is people simply chattering on...for myself i simply don't have the time. I do appreciate it and notice when there are new people coming in here and posting for the maps. And really this is the most appropriate place to do it...at the development level of these maps.

i don't see it as an us and them issue. I see the problem being that people simply get their noses put out of joint when their suggestions are rebuffed. And let's face it, we all don't get our own way in life, but move on. Lets get the next issue on the board and keep the ball rolling.

If we made changes to our maps that were everyone's suggestions, we'd never get anything quenched. I do have a real issue when player don't bother to come into the Foundry and give their opinions when maps are being developed and then expect them to be pandered to when they are out in the play area. Having said that, i think i am a fair person....i am not always right and you'll get an apology out of me.

I have also posted a topic in GD that is call Maps Stats etc. In there are links to the development atlas. and the Foundry. I think some people use it but they don't comment in that post as when i went looking for it this last weekend, i found it down on page 5 in order to update the fortnightly stats.

All your above points were extremely reasonable and I concur in the main - i agree with you its the early stages is when you guys need input but as of now things are being seen late in the game probably too late by most community members outside here.

cairnswk wrote:
I have also posted a topic in GD that is call Maps Stats etc. In there are links to the development atlas. and the Foundry. I think some people use it but they don't comment in that post as when i went looking for it this last weekend, i found it down on page 5 in order to update the fortnightly stats.

I have looked at this thread regularly and never realised it had links in it - I assumed it just showed map movements and like most pure stats threads people only post errors or omissions - maybe the name on this thread could be changed to "maps news" and be made a stickie that way it would attract far more attention also coleman could post his newsletter in that thread as well. In effect there would be one active thread then in general discussion that would draw people into the foundry.

rebelman wrote:All your above points were extremely reasonable and I concur in the main - i agree with you its the early stages is when you guys need input but as of now things are being seen late in the game probably too late by most community members outside here.

cairnswk wrote:
I have also posted a topic in GD that is call Maps Stats etc. In there are links to the development atlas. and the Foundry. I think some people use it but they don't comment in that post as when i went looking for it this last weekend, i found it down on page 5 in order to update the fortnightly stats.

I have looked at this thread regularly and never realised it had links in it - I assumed it just showed map movements and like most pure stats threads people only post errors or omissions - maybe the name on this thread could be changed to "maps news" and be made a stickie that way it would attract far more attention also coleman could post his newsletter in that thread as well. In effect there would be one active thread then in general discussion that would draw people into the foundry.

There is a link in there to Map News...so far i brought this stickied idea to the attention of Andy. If you also want to take it "upstairs" then by all means be my guest.

d.gishman wrote:I enjoy most of the maps, but ill admit some styles dont fit right with me... the ones that look like an old 1993 videogame.. i dont want the mention any names here

I prefer maps that are clean and stylish

Actually it is a 1983 video game. And it is clean and stylish for a 1983 based video game. That is why it looks like that.

rebelman wrote:

khazalid wrote:i found the reaction to WM recently quite abhorrent

As someone who has been highly critical of the new canada map today on a number of threads at no stage was I critical of WM, if anything I was complimentary of him and I did not post in the flame wars thread as I too was unimpressed by the comments in there. I'm assuming Khaz was not referring to me but in case other people interpret it that way, I wanted to clarify.

I know you were never threatening me rebelman and I appreciate that. My concern was the sudden "problem" with the colors when the same probtem has always existed (I ans several others actually think the old map is WORSE).

oaktown wrote:But I don't think that anybody who has closely followed the production of a map could say that style is more important than game play. It takes weeks to work out the play of a map - identifying dead-ends and bottlenecks, working out bonuses, creating balance at the start of the game, location of unpassable borders, readability of titles, placement of army counts and shadows, use of bombardments/neutrals/one-way attacks, etc. So while as mapmaker I may have final say over style issues, I am at the mercy of the foundry when it comes to game play.

I agree with this. I want to make my maps look as good as possible. Fitting them into the theme from which the come. I have changed many graphical issues pointed out by members.

oaktown wrote:]I don't get the sense that anybody is trying to out-do each other... we're all pretty friendly, and the bulk of the graphics help/suggestions that I've received has come from the other mapmakers. I think would be more fair to say that we are all trying to come up with something original, both in form and function. Classic has been done - in many variations - and I don't want to redo it again. I want people to play my map because it is BETTER than classic.

Out-do is not the right word. When I see someone elses stuff I want to learn how to make it better. If I only wanted to outdo other peoples work, I would not have posted the last 5 maps I did for download so everyone could pick them apart. I think there is a much more community driven attitude in the foundry. Sure I like my maps to look good. But I don't want anyone elses to look bad.

oaktown wrote:Well, that can be said and has been said, and with the increasing number of maps in play it becomes more and more valid, but I would never use this argument. I want people to want to play my maps.

Rather, I would use this counter-argument: if you hate the look and play of a map that has gone through a three to six month foundry process, why didn't you make your opinion known before it went live? As a foundry regular I find it a bit insulting that people never check in here and then 1) criticize the maps the foundry produces and 2) ridicule the people who are working on them.

Because really, what does it take to be a foundry-goer? You click the link, look at some maps, leave your opinions, and you're done... you've just helped steer the direction of a new map. And I guess if anybody hates the map, you are in part responsible. It's like politics: if you don't show up to vote, you have no right to complain later about the guy who won.

So let's drop the "you and us" talk... WE are all users of the site, but only some of us choose to participate in the democratic foundry process.

It's funny, but the users of other forums have branded the foundry-goers as a strange and exclusive breed. I'm guilty of not spending time in the other forums, so if that makes me strange, so be it. I figure if I want to discuss the merits of Ron Paul I can do so in the real world.

Instead of typing it all over again, I will just say. I agree

rebelman wrote:Again even with this latest issue on the canada map instead of accepting our detailed honest input the map maker openly challenged me as to why I couldn't see it.

The reason i asked is that the colors on the old map are hard, if not harder, to read than the new map. Several people have said this. While I am not saying the numbers are like reading black font on white paper, they are easier to read than the old one. I am not trying to be a pain here but this map went though TONS of criticism and I actually redid the entire thing from scratch after the competition was over. So I am not trying to put our junk and make it harder for people to play.

I guess what I am saying id that if it had been a problem with the old map, people would have complained and then you would have a case. But the did not complain so it is hard for me to understand why it is a problem now.


The main issue I have with this is that the foundry is open and people can voice their opinions and issues. If after a map if quenched and there were no gameplay issues (XML, misspelled names, missing graphics) but people can complain about it and force a fix, then we are all in trouble. A map should not be taken off or required to be drastically changed because a very small percentage of players dislike it. This is a dangerous precedent and I believe should not be allowed.

And again it is not because I don't have time to fix them or don't think I can. It is because the stage is now set for anyone to complain about anything on all of the current maps to potentially make them fix the "problems"

WM

rebelman wrote:As an outsider I tried commenting on several maps here some weeks ago and I was met with such a reaction from cartographers it prompted me to write a report in the "abuse" forum.

I was told at the time I was overreacting and the foundry loves input from "outsiders" (a foundry regular's word at the time not mine - as I don't think calling us outsiders is fair or reasonable)

Is this the same incident that came up a few weeks ago? (I can't find that thread.) Because while I'm not aware of the specifics of the incident, at the time I came up with some general thoughts:
1) the forum depends on a strong collective memory of what can and can't work, and sometimes its frustrating to hear a user suggest something that is impossible due to site/xml/graphic/laws of physics limitations.
2) often suggestions/concerns are raised that have already been addressed within the thread.
3) occasionally you see a mapmaker get too attached to an element of his/her project and get a bit defensive, and.
4) in any forum you're going to run into some ass holes.

rebelman wrote:Again even with this latest issue on the canada map instead of accepting our detailed honest input the map maker openly challenged me as to why I couldn't see it.

Again, I don't know the specifics, but I bet this was after the map went live, right? Sending a project through the foundry is a long and tedious process which takes anywhere from two to six months. WM had been working on the map for months, responding to and making changes based on daily feedback. Then when everybody gives it their stamp of approval he receives a deluge of complaints about his work. Where were these voices a week ago? A month ago? Three months ago when the contest was announced?

rebelman wrote:1/ When new people comment on maps (even if its a dopey comment) welcome their input and bear in mind they may not be too clued in on photoshop etc. There next comment (which will come if they get a positive reaction) may not be so dopey and after a while this guy/girl might not just be making comments they might be making a map.

I agree with this. And honestly, while I've been around the foundry for months, I don't know who is a regular and who isn't. There are four or five avatars I recognize, but over the course of three months I see dozens of users post in a thread. I don't have a list of who's who.

But keep in mind that if somebody posts an idea that I think is awful, I will tell the forum why I think it's awful. It is my responsibility to either implement or address every suggestion, and I'm not going to implement the really bad ones.

rebelman wrote:2/ Don't just wait for others to visit it here - leave the foundry and seek input from outside. gimil and unit_2 have used live chat, DiM has used his sig (useing your sig is not much good, if you never leave the foundry). i made a simple suggestion several weeks ago that fell on deaf ears that i believe would help this - have a stickie thread in general discussion with hyperlinks to all maps in the foundry especially those not quenched yet - maybe with a brief description next to each link. i'm not sure why this was ignored when I previously suggested it but in this context I am throwing it out there again.

Again, I agree... but if everyone who is currently making a map posted a new thread in another forum there'd be hundreds of new posts, most of which would probably be lost in the shuffle and ignored.

Maybe Coleman's Foundry News can be copy/pasted into another forum as well? GD? As a foundry regular it has helped ME make sense of the work here, so I imagine it would be doubly helpful to outsiders.

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

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

_____________________________________________________________


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

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


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

here's a very telling quote that i just pulled from the GD forum:

Kugelblitz22 wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:The best way to decide, is be active in the Foundry Process.

--Andy

There has to be a better way than that...

The map foundry sucks.
I don't have the time it takes to slog through hundreds of pages quibbling over map minutia.

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