Moderator: Cartographers
natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
Coleman wrote:In response to gimil. Well new players sometimes wonder about CCU because of the parking lot and the quad or whatever that central part was called not being worth anything. Which isn't comfortable for a risk veteran right away.
We don't get a lot (maybe not any) posted complaints about it, but I've been in games with people confused slightly back when I first joined. So I'd suggest changing that to Standard.
Otherwise nothing is jumping out at me from in there besides some debate on what makes something Freaking Weird vs Complex, but that can wait tell some more people post their thoughts and we can see what isn't matching.
natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
Coleman wrote:He's free to do that.yeti_c wrote:Cue DiM coming in and saying all his maps are easy!?!?
C.
wcaclimbing wrote:DiM wrote: in any online game 2 types of people join.
1. people that have played that game or something similar before (highest rate of remaining)
2. people that join for the sake of joining (highest rate of making an account starting 4 games and never returning)
On top of that the players that just don't like the complex/hardcore maps can just use this anyway so they can not have them in their list.wcaclimbing wrote:DiM wrote: in any online game 2 types of people join.
1. people that have played that game or something similar before (highest rate of remaining)
2. people that join for the sake of joining (highest rate of making an account starting 4 games and never returning)
I think we are gearing it towards the slightly stupid version of number 1. For the smart guys out there, they can just realize that they will be able to play the most complex map out there without a problem, making the difficulty rating useless to them.
If we aimed the ratings more at the stupid kids that still slightly understand the game, it would work better. the best guys just dont have to use the complexity rating, but they will know that they wont have much trouble playing on any map on the site. For the lower guys, the complexity rating would help a lot, cause if they know that anything in the Complex category confuses them, they will know which ones to try out and what to stay away from.
Coleman wrote:When you post your thoughts, I want the target to be you. Post exactly what you think even if you believe we might disagree or that a normal player may be less intelligent then what you are saying.
Coleman wrote:My comments from CCU are for experience, the guy wanted to know what the Parking Lot was worth and didn't understand my saying nothing. I think the log is still there so I could go find it. It was in the first month I joined.
yeti_c wrote:DiM - you're making this far too much work than it really is - just rate them on what you reckon a newish person would see them as...
C.
Coleman wrote:Anyway, one or two more lists and I'll take all the ones everyone is putting in the same place out of our debate.
Coleman wrote:I'm rating is based on how easy it is to understand the basic layout and rules of the map. That's it. Nothing else. Emergent strategy is the player's responsibility and there is no way we could all agree on that and rate it.
We can agree that, say, Thai Burma Railway has about 8 extra rules written out and that building layout is a bit confusing at first. Making it at the very least Complex.
We aren't saying the strategy may be hard or complex, we are just saying a new player can't show up, start playing, and know exactly what is going on if he refuses to read a bit.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users