So help me out here...
Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 12:43 pmIt would be most helpful if folks would provide meaningful insight into this post. But it is time for the map foundry to review the map approval process as applied, as written, and as it should be. In the interim, I think that the map handbook ought to be pulled because it does not described the map approval process for conquerclub.com as it is being applied currently.
1) The cartographers are applying a requirement that new map makers achieve some ambiguous criteria to prove their worth before the actual "Official How to Make a Map Handbook" and "Stages of map development" criteria are actually applied. Either a process and criteria for becoming an official stamped cartographer ought to be developed or this requirement needs to be dropped. There is a stated need in the foundry for new members. The How to make a map handbook was not very helpful to me I know because the criteria as desribed were not implemented.
2) Apply the criteria to all maps. I am not interested in picking on particular map makers, but it should be clear these are all requirements for maps:
There are several maps that are repetitive by all three of these but have moved ahead. In some cases, the maps are by the same map maker.
We have maps moving along that don't even have defined gameplay.
Sound advice is ignored by experienced map makers and it is ok. Sound advice is applied by new map makers and they still don't care. The anti-new map maker bias hurts this site.
Define community. Because there are maps with community support not getting moved and maps without it getting moved.
3. Test plays should be mandatory. Obviously a test play section would be ideal. But I see all these maps get into the main foundry that aren't even playable. Furthermore, test plays would help folks to understand that players see things differently than map makers. A lot of maps need less pretty and more clear communications.
4. Moderation needs to follow moderation. Moderators should be less concerned about what maps they want to play and more concerned about what is good for the community.
5. I recommend that it be more clear why maps are moved forward and held back. A simple modofication to the process would be helpful instead of leaving the map maker guessing. For example, when a map is moved from one stage to the next it should be justified. Not a long detailed report, but a short description of why that map meets the criteria for that stage. Similarly, when doing periodic reviews I recommend that cartographers use the written criteria. If they want more criteria they should ask for it through an amendment to the map making handbook and stages of production (which should be pinned if it is gonna be followed). Otherwise, keeping it professional and clear. If there are 4 criteria, let the map makers which ones are pass/fail. But a clear rationale would be helpful and more conducive to success and the idea of encouraging new map makers.
6. What does "I hate this idea" (or "I love this idea") actually contribute to a map thread? Why do you dislike it? Is this just a personal preference or do you think one that will be commonly held by cc? (I honestly am mored interested in input geared at the target audience). Why do you like it? or don't like it? If you don't want to say than you are not providing constructive feedback. Constructive feedback should be mandatory
7. Adopt another process. What is the point of having multiple stages of some map makers are required to meet criteria of stage V in stage I and others aren't even required to meet stage I requirements in Stage III? A simple suggestion would be to get that test area up and running. And allow it to maps that have quality xml and graphics regardless of whose they are and let the test play process result in stamps. Or do a better breakdown of having an ideas stamp actually be relevent to the idea. But a trial by fire is probably the best way to streamline this process
8. Adopt a process that is accessible to our target audience (the 99.9999% of cc who never come here). They are our target audience. And if they are not your target audience something is wrong with you. I don't make maps so that map makers can play them. I make them for everyone. Poll them to get ideas approved or something.
For what it is worth, I'm willing to help with a re-write. I know some of these concerns initially led to the FAQ, but the issue is as long as the map handbook and stages criteria aren't followed they either need to be updated or the process needs to be amended to conform. Or a combination of both.
1) The cartographers are applying a requirement that new map makers achieve some ambiguous criteria to prove their worth before the actual "Official How to Make a Map Handbook" and "Stages of map development" criteria are actually applied. Either a process and criteria for becoming an official stamped cartographer ought to be developed or this requirement needs to be dropped. There is a stated need in the foundry for new members. The How to make a map handbook was not very helpful to me I know because the criteria as desribed were not implemented.
2) Apply the criteria to all maps. I am not interested in picking on particular map makers, but it should be clear these are all requirements for maps:
1. A map should be ‘inherently unique either in gameplay, location, or theme’.
There are several maps that are repetitive by all three of these but have moved ahead. In some cases, the maps are by the same map maker.
2. Gameplay features must be compatible with the game engines currently usable XML.
We have maps moving along that don't even have defined gameplay.
4. All sound advice must be followed unless a logical rebuttal by the cartographer or another member of the community is provided.
Sound advice is ignored by experienced map makers and it is ok. Sound advice is applied by new map makers and they still don't care. The anti-new map maker bias hurts this site.
5. To proceed through the foundry the community must show a reasonable amount of interest towards a map.
Define community. Because there are maps with community support not getting moved and maps without it getting moved.
3. Test plays should be mandatory. Obviously a test play section would be ideal. But I see all these maps get into the main foundry that aren't even playable. Furthermore, test plays would help folks to understand that players see things differently than map makers. A lot of maps need less pretty and more clear communications.
4. Moderation needs to follow moderation. Moderators should be less concerned about what maps they want to play and more concerned about what is good for the community.
5. I recommend that it be more clear why maps are moved forward and held back. A simple modofication to the process would be helpful instead of leaving the map maker guessing. For example, when a map is moved from one stage to the next it should be justified. Not a long detailed report, but a short description of why that map meets the criteria for that stage. Similarly, when doing periodic reviews I recommend that cartographers use the written criteria. If they want more criteria they should ask for it through an amendment to the map making handbook and stages of production (which should be pinned if it is gonna be followed). Otherwise, keeping it professional and clear. If there are 4 criteria, let the map makers which ones are pass/fail. But a clear rationale would be helpful and more conducive to success and the idea of encouraging new map makers.
6. What does "I hate this idea" (or "I love this idea") actually contribute to a map thread? Why do you dislike it? Is this just a personal preference or do you think one that will be commonly held by cc? (I honestly am mored interested in input geared at the target audience). Why do you like it? or don't like it? If you don't want to say than you are not providing constructive feedback. Constructive feedback should be mandatory
7. Adopt another process. What is the point of having multiple stages of some map makers are required to meet criteria of stage V in stage I and others aren't even required to meet stage I requirements in Stage III? A simple suggestion would be to get that test area up and running. And allow it to maps that have quality xml and graphics regardless of whose they are and let the test play process result in stamps. Or do a better breakdown of having an ideas stamp actually be relevent to the idea. But a trial by fire is probably the best way to streamline this process
8. Adopt a process that is accessible to our target audience (the 99.9999% of cc who never come here). They are our target audience. And if they are not your target audience something is wrong with you. I don't make maps so that map makers can play them. I make them for everyone. Poll them to get ideas approved or something.
For what it is worth, I'm willing to help with a re-write. I know some of these concerns initially led to the FAQ, but the issue is as long as the map handbook and stages criteria aren't followed they either need to be updated or the process needs to be amended to conform. Or a combination of both.
mibi your year in the foundry without much happening just prooves that there is special treatment, we would never be allowed to stay there 