Conquer Club

[GP/UI] New Initial Deployment - Conquest

Have any bright ideas? Share and discuss them with the community
Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

And don't forget to search for previously suggested ideas first!

Do you support the Conquest game option?

Yes
24
49%
No
21
43%
Yes, with restrictions.
4
8%
 
Total votes : 49

Re: New Initial Deployment - Conquest

Postby Metsfanmax on Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:51 am

koontz1973 wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:Take Classic. If I understand the XML guide, the game engine sees every territory as a legal starting position. Then the game engine randomly assigns control of each of these territories evenly to all players. Then the game engine assigns the remainder automatically to neutrals. We simply change the first step from "randomly assigns control of all of the territories to players" to "randomly assigns control of one of the territories to players" (for Conquest game-mode only). Then the second step proceeds as normal (there are plenty of 'remainder' territories now, though). The only part the XML plays in all of this is to tell the game engine which territories are legal to start on, which it already does for these maps.

3 problems for this, all are equally important and should of stopped this.
  • The game engine sees territories as a default position as long as no starting positions are placed inside the xml. A lot of maps have starting positions so the engine will always assign those. You would need to remove all starting positions within all xml from all maps for this game engine modification to work.


OK, I'm glad we agree that the problem (if there is one) is going to lie with the not-Classic-style maps. I would have to see the game engine logic (either in pseudocode, or the actual code) to be certain, but I think there would be a simple way to craft this so that it doesn't mess with maps with defined starting positions. For example, on Feudal-like maps, we would have a switch that says, essentially,

Code: Select all
if (Conquest) then
  choose only one starting position randomly
else
  default code
endif


  • By changing the game engines default from dividing up all territories evenly between all players to only giving one out will effect all maps. There can only be one default.


Well yes, that's the idea -- every map in Conquest mode would have only one starting position. We would do something like the following:

Code: Select all
if (Conquest) then
  assign every player one starting position randomly
else
  divide up territories among all players randomly
endif

assign all remaining territories neutral


What I want to know is, are there any maps where a game engine change would be completely incompatible with the XML? I think we're good for Classic-style and Feudal-style, but are there pathological ones?

  • Lastly, gameplay would need to be worked out for each map. No way will a map like this ever get past game play in the foundry. You cannot assign a random drop like this for maps as it would be completely unfair 100% of the time.


This is a valid point. However, I don't think the Foundry should be considering this game mode strongly when working out new maps unless there would be an easy way to consider it, for consistency. The reason is that (because the drops are random) there's no question of unfairness. Of course there will always be better drops and worse drops (like landing in Oceania on Classic) but I don't see any way for this to be broken since, well, everyone starts with only one territory. You can't do much damage with only one territory -- it levels the playing field out for everyone.
User avatar
Lieutenant Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 5273
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm
Location: NY
Medals: 43
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1)
Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (7) Clan Achievement (2)
General Contribution (7)

Re: New Initial Deployment - Conquest

Postby koontz1973 on Sun Oct 06, 2013 9:36 am

Let me make this really simple then.

Engine change or not, it is the xml that tells the engine how to play the game, not the other way round. The engine cannot play the games, if it could, then we would not have to write the xml. You cannot just change the engine to say drop only 1 region onto a map because every xml says differently. If it was as simple as having two different types of engine, then why do we get two different types of xml written. Look at the xml for classic and feudal war and it will show you how it is done and how it needs to be done. We have no way round this.

But lets say this change happened and we ended up with two different engines. The current one we have now and another for this idea. Every map with killer neutrals, starting positions, win conditions, lose conditions, starting neutrals would need to be removed from the list. That would leave you with about 30 maps.

Metsfanmax wrote:This is a valid point. However, I don't think the Foundry should be considering this game mode strongly when working out new maps unless there would be an easy way to consider it, for consistency. The reason is that (because the drops are random) there's no question of unfairness. Of course there will always be better drops and worse drops (like landing in Oceania on Classic) but I don't see any way for this to be broken since, well, everyone starts with only one territory. You can't do much damage with only one territory -- it levels the playing field out for everyone.

It does not work like that. In the foundry we need to take into consideration every type and size of game that is playable on the map. You do not get stamped otherwise. Oliver, you know this and as an ex-xml checker for the foundry, I am surprised you did not know any of this.

Mets, your head thinker, if you think I am wrong, talk to the boss. I would be very pleased for this to happen but I do not believe it is as simple as you think it is.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class koontz1973
 
Posts: 7538
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:57 am
Medals: 117
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (2)
Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (10) General Achievement (13) Clan Achievement (5) Map Contribution (12)
Tournament Contribution (31) General Contribution (10)

Re: New Initial Deployment - Conquest

Postby Metsfanmax on Sun Oct 06, 2013 10:00 am

OK. I will have a chat with the admins about how the game engine works so that I can better understand whether this is possible.
User avatar
Lieutenant Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 5273
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm
Location: NY
Medals: 43
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1)
Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (7) Clan Achievement (2)
General Contribution (7)

Re: New Initial Deployment - Conquest

Postby OliverFA on Sun Oct 06, 2013 11:12 am

Anyway, there is few sense in using Conquest mode in a Conquest map. I say that if a map is already a Conquest map (has starting territories in the XML) then the best choice of action is to make this option unavailable for it.

This option makes sense for Classic-like maps, in those maps it has a lot of potential for new and interesting games.
Welcoming the long awaited Trench Warfare Setting (Previously Adjacent Attacks).

My Maps:
Research and Conquer - Civilization meets Conquer Club

Best score: 2,346 - Best position: #618 - Best percentile: 4.87%
User avatar
Private OliverFA
 
Posts: 2362
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:30 am
Location: Somewhere in Spain
Medals: 32
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1)
Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (2) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1)
Clan Achievement (3) Training Achievement (1) Tournament Contribution (2) General Contribution (5)

Re: New Initial Deployment - Conquest

Postby agentcom on Sun Oct 06, 2013 11:24 am

The pushback from the Foundry is expected. They're really emphasizing balanced maps right now, and even in my limited interaction with them, there's a lot of "that map would never get to beta" nowadays. But I think maybe they've gone too far on this front when disagreeing with this idea for potential unfairness reasons. I think this setting would be FUN, and don't care all that much about the balance.

As for Koontz' points, I'll be interested to hear the answers, but it seems to me that the game engine could be modified in the manner that Mets is talking about. My understanding is that the XML is "read" by the game engine, so that could be programmed to read the potential starting spots and just assign 1. On a map with set "bases," you would just get 1 of those bases instead of the something-more-than-one you get now (e.g. Feudal series).
User avatar
Captain agentcom
 
Posts: 4075
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 8:50 pm
Medals: 92
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Polymorphic Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (3)
Cross-Map Achievement (4) Beta Map Achievement (1) Battle Royale Achievement (2) Bot Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3)
Tournament Achievement (25) General Achievement (7) Clan Achievement (8) General Contribution (2)

Re: New Initial Deployment - Conquest

Postby spiesr on Sun Oct 06, 2013 11:55 am

koontz1973, my understanding is that (most of) those who desire this suggestion are okay with it producing drops that have an unequal chance of victory. While I disagree with this and think that would be a reason not to go forward with this suggestion that is what they want.
So, what the changes I see this requiring in the foundry are:
  • Maps will have to have some sort of marker in the XML specify whether or not a territory is suitable for being a starting territory for this mode. All possible starting position would not need to be fair, just not broken. (Anything that players can already start with, can attack the rest of the map, and possibly not being autodeploy/decay or one territory bonus region (+ or -) is presumably a valid starting location.)
  • Some maps would presumably just be declared incompatible with this suggestion.

The burden of doing this for all existing maps should be admin's problem to worry about if they decide to implement this.
So, while this work result in some additional work for the map maker/foundry it doesn't seem like it would be too much to ask. Maps would not be required to be "balanced" for this game mode. That said I still oppose this suggestion for that very unbalance.
User avatar
Captain spiesr
 
Posts: 2809
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 10:52 am
Location: South Dakota
Medals: 24
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1)
Ratings Achievement (3) General Achievement (6) General Contribution (2)

Re: New Initial Deployment - Conquest

Postby DoomYoshi on Sun Oct 06, 2013 1:37 pm

agentcom wrote:The pushback from the Foundry is expected. They're really emphasizing balanced maps right now, and even in my limited interaction with them, there's a lot of "that map would never get to beta" nowadays. But I think maybe they've gone too far on this front when disagreeing with this idea for potential unfairness reasons. I think this setting would be FUN, and don't care all that much about the balance.

As for Koontz' points, I'll be interested to hear the answers, but it seems to me that the game engine could be modified in the manner that Mets is talking about. My understanding is that the XML is "read" by the game engine, so that could be programmed to read the potential starting spots and just assign 1. On a map with set "bases," you would just get 1 of those bases instead of the something-more-than-one you get now (e.g. Feudal series).


Exactly. I hate playing feudal 1v1. Those maps may be "balanced" but they are not fun (especially Clandemonium).
I will not stand for an America where reckless bankers and suicide bombers can make a mockery of our promise for tomorrow.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class DoomYoshi
 
Posts: 5685
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 9:30 pm
Location: Termina Field
Medals: 74
The Championships Gold (1) Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2)
Terminator Achievement (1) Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2)
Fog of War Achievement (3) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (2) General Achievement (8)
Clan Achievement (16) Tournament Contribution (6) General Contribution (5)

Re: New Initial Deployment - Conquest

Postby OliverFA on Sun Oct 06, 2013 2:07 pm

DoomYoshi wrote:
agentcom wrote:The pushback from the Foundry is expected. They're really emphasizing balanced maps right now, and even in my limited interaction with them, there's a lot of "that map would never get to beta" nowadays. But I think maybe they've gone too far on this front when disagreeing with this idea for potential unfairness reasons. I think this setting would be FUN, and don't care all that much about the balance.

As for Koontz' points, I'll be interested to hear the answers, but it seems to me that the game engine could be modified in the manner that Mets is talking about. My understanding is that the XML is "read" by the game engine, so that could be programmed to read the potential starting spots and just assign 1. On a map with set "bases," you would just get 1 of those bases instead of the something-more-than-one you get now (e.g. Feudal series).


Exactly. I hate playing feudal 1v1. Those maps may be "balanced" but they are not fun (especially Clandemonium).


Yes. Balanced does not always mean fun. That's why the asymmetric balance concept appeared in some strategy games.

But coming back to the subject: currently there are dozens, perhaps hundreds of maps in CC. The need for all of them to fit each setting really hurts some concepts, because they have to dismiss some ideas because such ideas don't fit all settings. Sometimes the idea fits 90% of settings, but can't progress due to the remaining 10%

Instead of having 200 maps who are too similar because they need to fit all settings, wouldn't be better to have, let's say, 30 maps for each setting, but maps who are really enjoyable under those settings? We have an example with the new 12 players update. There are maps who simply can't fit 12 players, and there is nothing wrong about it. I'd rather play Clandemonium with 10 players or Conquer Rome with 8 players than losing those maps because they don't reach the 12 players mark.

So, if only 30 maps are suitable for Conquest mode, then be it so. The remaining maps won't be played in Conquest mode anyway, except by players who make a mistake or by players who try them once to never repeat that combination of maps and settings again.
Welcoming the long awaited Trench Warfare Setting (Previously Adjacent Attacks).

My Maps:
Research and Conquer - Civilization meets Conquer Club

Best score: 2,346 - Best position: #618 - Best percentile: 4.87%
User avatar
Private OliverFA
 
Posts: 2362
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:30 am
Location: Somewhere in Spain
Medals: 32
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1)
Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (2) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1)
Clan Achievement (3) Training Achievement (1) Tournament Contribution (2) General Contribution (5)

Re: New Initial Deployment - Conquest

Postby koontz1973 on Sun Oct 06, 2013 11:59 pm

OliverFA wrote:Instead of having 200 maps who are too similar because they need to fit all settings, wouldn't be better to have, let's say, 30 maps for each setting, but maps who are really enjoyable under those settings?

This is an idea that if posted in suggestions, would probably get 99.99% support from all map makers and foundry staff.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class koontz1973
 
Posts: 7538
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:57 am
Medals: 117
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (2)
Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (10) General Achievement (13) Clan Achievement (5) Map Contribution (12)
Tournament Contribution (31) General Contribution (10)

Re: New Initial Deployment - Conquest

Postby Fazeem on Mon Oct 07, 2013 1:54 pm

I truly believe all the naysayers who have not voiced why they oppose should. when is the public vote option coming heck I can get the phpbb link for yall if noone else is willing to look lol
User avatar
Lieutenant Fazeem
 
Posts: 207
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 6:38 pm
Medals: 24
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (2)
Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (2)
Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)

Re: New Initial Deployment - Conquest

Postby thenobodies80 on Mon Oct 07, 2013 2:30 pm

koontz1973 wrote:
OliverFA wrote:Instead of having 200 maps who are too similar because they need to fit all settings, wouldn't be better to have, let's say, 30 maps for each setting, but maps who are really enjoyable under those settings?

This is an idea that if posted in suggestions, would probably get 99.99% support from all map makers and foundry staff.


And I would add that this is something I'm going to propose to admins for future maps, without go through suggestions.....honestly mapmaking and suggestions don't go hand in hand, specially if all what we suggested for years to make better and unique maps has always been ignored or postponed...
I do NOT visit this site and I'm NOT Team CC anymore.
All PMs are autobinned.
If you need to contact me, you should already have a way to do it without using this site.
Thanks to those who helped me through the years. :)
Corporal 1st Class thenobodies80
 
Posts: 5558
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:30 am
Location: Not here
Medals: 70
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Bot Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
General Achievement (8) Map Contribution (7) Tournament Contribution (6) General Contribution (17)

Re: New Initial Deployment - Conquest

Postby OliverFA on Mon Oct 07, 2013 2:43 pm

thenobodies80 wrote:
koontz1973 wrote:
OliverFA wrote:Instead of having 200 maps who are too similar because they need to fit all settings, wouldn't be better to have, let's say, 30 maps for each setting, but maps who are really enjoyable under those settings?

This is an idea that if posted in suggestions, would probably get 99.99% support from all map makers and foundry staff.


And I would add that this is something I'm going to propose to admins for future maps, without go through suggestions.....honestly mapmaking and suggestions don't go hand in hand, specially if all what we suggested for years to make better and unique maps has always been ignored or postponed...


The new management has demonstrated that he is willing to go to places where previous management did not want to go. As an example we have the bots despite that previously everything remotely similar to AI was rejected. Perhaps bigwham is open to that idea. I say that it's worth trying! If you prefer me to make the suggestion so it does not come from someone inside CC Team, just let me know and I'll be happy to post it.
Welcoming the long awaited Trench Warfare Setting (Previously Adjacent Attacks).

My Maps:
Research and Conquer - Civilization meets Conquer Club

Best score: 2,346 - Best position: #618 - Best percentile: 4.87%
User avatar
Private OliverFA
 
Posts: 2362
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:30 am
Location: Somewhere in Spain
Medals: 32
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1)
Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (2) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1)
Clan Achievement (3) Training Achievement (1) Tournament Contribution (2) General Contribution (5)

Re: New Initial Deployment - Conquest

Postby DoomYoshi on Mon Oct 07, 2013 3:26 pm

thenobodies80 wrote:
koontz1973 wrote:
OliverFA wrote:Instead of having 200 maps who are too similar because they need to fit all settings, wouldn't be better to have, let's say, 30 maps for each setting, but maps who are really enjoyable under those settings?

This is an idea that if posted in suggestions, would probably get 99.99% support from all map makers and foundry staff.


And I would add that this is something I'm going to propose to admins for future maps, without go through suggestions.....honestly mapmaking and suggestions don't go hand in hand, specially if all what we suggested for years to make better and unique maps has always been ignored or postponed...


I would agree that this is the correct way to go about this; and I do agree with OliverFA`s suggestion, although I do like the freedom to play maps on not-ideal settings.
I will not stand for an America where reckless bankers and suicide bombers can make a mockery of our promise for tomorrow.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class DoomYoshi
 
Posts: 5685
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 9:30 pm
Location: Termina Field
Medals: 74
The Championships Gold (1) Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2)
Terminator Achievement (1) Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2)
Fog of War Achievement (3) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (2) General Achievement (8)
Clan Achievement (16) Tournament Contribution (6) General Contribution (5)

Re: New Initial Deployment - Conquest

Postby koontz1973 on Mon Oct 07, 2013 11:20 pm

DoomYoshi wrote:
thenobodies80 wrote:
koontz1973 wrote:
OliverFA wrote:Instead of having 200 maps who are too similar because they need to fit all settings, wouldn't be better to have, let's say, 30 maps for each setting, but maps who are really enjoyable under those settings?

This is an idea that if posted in suggestions, would probably get 99.99% support from all map makers and foundry staff.


And I would add that this is something I'm going to propose to admins for future maps, without go through suggestions.....honestly mapmaking and suggestions don't go hand in hand, specially if all what we suggested for years to make better and unique maps has always been ignored or postponed...


I would agree that this is the correct way to go about this; and I do agree with OliverFA`s suggestion, although I do like the freedom to play maps on not-ideal settings.

And you know have 200 of them.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class koontz1973
 
Posts: 7538
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:57 am
Medals: 117
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (2)
Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (10) General Achievement (13) Clan Achievement (5) Map Contribution (12)
Tournament Contribution (31) General Contribution (10)

Re: New Initial Deployment - Conquest

Postby Metsfanmax on Mon Oct 07, 2013 11:35 pm

thenobodies80 wrote:
koontz1973 wrote:
OliverFA wrote:Instead of having 200 maps who are too similar because they need to fit all settings, wouldn't be better to have, let's say, 30 maps for each setting, but maps who are really enjoyable under those settings?

This is an idea that if posted in suggestions, would probably get 99.99% support from all map makers and foundry staff.


And I would add that this is something I'm going to propose to admins for future maps, without go through suggestions.....honestly mapmaking and suggestions don't go hand in hand, specially if all what we suggested for years to make better and unique maps has always been ignored or postponed...


As your foundry rules stand now, this implementation would evidently have an effect on you. That is not our fault, we don't control the Foundry approval process (just like we don't set Clan rules or Tournament guidelines). And with what you're saying, it sounds like I shouldn't be considering the effect this will have on you when deciding whether to submit it. That is fine with me -- I don't want to hold back interesting gameplay options because the Foundry has a process that doesn't really make sense in this regard. Perhaps this is the stimulus that is needed to convince the administration to take this seriously...
User avatar
Lieutenant Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 5273
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm
Location: NY
Medals: 43
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1)
Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (7) Clan Achievement (2)
General Contribution (7)

Re: New Initial Deployment - Conquest

Postby OliverFA on Tue Oct 08, 2013 6:22 am

Metsfanmax wrote:Perhaps this is the stimulus that is needed to convince the administration to take this seriously...


Yes. Sounds like a very good motivator.
Welcoming the long awaited Trench Warfare Setting (Previously Adjacent Attacks).

My Maps:
Research and Conquer - Civilization meets Conquer Club

Best score: 2,346 - Best position: #618 - Best percentile: 4.87%
User avatar
Private OliverFA
 
Posts: 2362
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:30 am
Location: Somewhere in Spain
Medals: 32
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1)
Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (2) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1)
Clan Achievement (3) Training Achievement (1) Tournament Contribution (2) General Contribution (5)

Re: New Initial Deployment - Conquest

Postby generalhead on Tue Oct 08, 2013 9:26 am

I am opposed to this idea. There are reasons why maps like Realms, the Feudals,the King's Courts maps, Antarctica, Peloponnesian War, WW11 Poland, Clandemonium, city Mogul, Classic Cities: Pot Mosbi, Das Schloss, Monsters, Treasures Of Galapagos, Woodboro are special because they follow a limited starting position already. If you make every map able to Have a special starting position these maps don't mean so much. Map makers have worked hard on these maps to make them special and if every map is able to have this starting position it takes away from these great maps that already follow this play. Next you will want every map to have a special win condition too. I am not trying to sound like an ass here but you have to think of this from every angle. Just like you didn't think about all of the coding that was needed to be done you also never thought of what This option would do to a good amount of specialty maps that we already have in play. If you want more maps that follow this game play I would offer for you to head to the foundry to try your hand at making more maps that follow this game play. Or if aren't willing to try making a map (which is tedious as hell and can take up to 8 months to a couple of years to accomplish) I suggest just playing the many great maps that already follow this game play.
Sergeant generalhead
 
Posts: 885
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 10:09 pm
Medals: 64
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (2) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (7) Challenge Achievement (1)
Tournament Contribution (14) General Contribution (1)

Re: New Initial Deployment - Conquest

Postby OliverFA on Tue Oct 08, 2013 10:58 am

generalhead wrote:Map makers have worked hard on these maps to make them special and if every map is able to have this starting position it takes away from these great maps that already follow this play.


That's why it has been suggested that this new setting would apply only to non-conquest maps. So, I am still in favour of this idea.

No one wants to "Conquest-ize" Feudal War, but being able to "Conquest-ize" Classic, World 2.1, The Hive, Eurasia, and many others is such an appealing idea that they justify implementing this setting.

generalhead wrote:Next you will want every map to have a special win condition too.

In fact, that's a very good idea. Being able to introduce objectives for maps without them (again, it makes no sense "objectivizing" objective maps). Each player starts with an objective and has to protect it, because holding 67% of the objectives ends the game.
Welcoming the long awaited Trench Warfare Setting (Previously Adjacent Attacks).

My Maps:
Research and Conquer - Civilization meets Conquer Club

Best score: 2,346 - Best position: #618 - Best percentile: 4.87%
User avatar
Private OliverFA
 
Posts: 2362
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:30 am
Location: Somewhere in Spain
Medals: 32
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1)
Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (2) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1)
Clan Achievement (3) Training Achievement (1) Tournament Contribution (2) General Contribution (5)

Re: New Initial Deployment - Conquest

Postby koontz1973 on Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:17 pm

OliverFA wrote:In fact, that's a very good idea. Being able to introduce objectives for maps without them (again, it makes no sense "objectivizing" objective maps). Each player starts with an objective and has to protect it, because holding 67% of the objectives ends the game.

Why not let map makers make the maps they want? You and everyone else has the opportunity to go into the foundry and comment on the maps during the year it takes to make each map.
Metsfanmax wrote:That is not our fault, we don't control the Foundry approval process (just like we don't set Clan rules or Tournament guidelines).

You are right, you do not set the guidelines for any other department, so why are you trying to circumvent the map making guidelines by forcing this onto map makers. We all live by the rules and map makers take a long time to make the maps perfect as much as they can do anyway. To make them go ahead and try to balance a map for a style of game play that it is not intended to, you will be adding a layer to the process that is already hard enough.

Any word from the admins yet?
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class koontz1973
 
Posts: 7538
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:57 am
Medals: 117
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (2)
Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (10) General Achievement (13) Clan Achievement (5) Map Contribution (12)
Tournament Contribution (31) General Contribution (10)

Re: New Initial Deployment - Conquest

Postby Metsfanmax on Tue Oct 08, 2013 3:01 pm

koontz1973 wrote:
OliverFA wrote:In fact, that's a very good idea. Being able to introduce objectives for maps without them (again, it makes no sense "objectivizing" objective maps). Each player starts with an objective and has to protect it, because holding 67% of the objectives ends the game.

Why not let map makers make the maps they want? You and everyone else has the opportunity to go into the foundry and comment on the maps during the year it takes to make each map.
Metsfanmax wrote:That is not our fault, we don't control the Foundry approval process (just like we don't set Clan rules or Tournament guidelines).

You are right, you do not set the guidelines for any other department, so why are you trying to circumvent the map making guidelines by forcing this onto map makers. We all live by the rules and map makers take a long time to make the maps perfect as much as they can do anyway. To make them go ahead and try to balance a map for a style of game play that it is not intended to, you will be adding a layer to the process that is already hard enough.


Think about what you're saying: that we should avoid exciting and fun new gameplay options on this site because the Foundry has a process that they don't even like. No, the purpose of the Suggestions department is to tell the admins what the community wants to do. If this creates too much work for the Foundry and they don't want that, then they should change their rules.
User avatar
Lieutenant Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 5273
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm
Location: NY
Medals: 43
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1)
Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (7) Clan Achievement (2)
General Contribution (7)

Re: New Initial Deployment - Conquest

Postby thenobodies80 on Tue Oct 08, 2013 3:18 pm

First of all let me say that I have nothing against the suggestion guys. I think you do a great job here and, like the foundry you have been put in a corner for too much time. I really appreciate all the hard work you do with dealing with all suggestions posted...really I'm really impressed for the job you do here. My comments are not against what you do here, they are against about discussing things about maps (or tournaments or clan, etc etc) outside the place that belong to them.
Things and suggestions about maps should be discussed inside the foundry not here....if it's not done in that way forum like tourney or the foundry will become empty place in which there's just production of things without any type of community involved....and it's sad.

koontz1973 wrote:To make them go ahead and try to balance a map for a style of game play that it is not intended to, you will be adding a layer to the process that is already hard enough.


About the above, I don't care so much about adding a layer to the process...I care more about destroy or change the hard and 100% free work of months that has been done without take into consideration the counter effect of such suggestions if they are implemented. This without consider that maps are an artistic product and change the product is like spit onto the mapmakers job. For example the recently implemented 12 players games on all maps...I'm not against it, but I think it was done in a bad manner....my maps weren't done and supposed to be played for 12 players....honestly i don't want my maps can be played in such way, they are not supposed to be played in such way.
If you want a my map playable in a different way first you have to ask...this for respect for something I did and I own; second the CC map agreement specifies that we allow to CC to use our maps as they are...we do not allow CC to change them. If CC doesn't see them fit anymore, then the site can remove them....not male them something that they are not supposed to be. If I would know that my maps would have been distorted from their original purpose/idea...then I would have never draw them.

When I buy a board game in a shop, I open it and I read rules....the rules are decided by the maker of the game, not by the customer. Sure the customer can create a "mod", but certainly can't force the maker to change the rules. It's true that customer, paying the product, have the right to make their voice heard about making it better....infact sometimes the maker can change the rules with time, if there's desire. But the customer can't force the maker to consider the mod the only way to play the game.
If you think, we have a open process, it's a long process and everyone is allowed to go into the foundry and suggest. This is possible from the start to the beta stage.(i.e. we allow people to suggest and ask for changes also when the map is already in play) that's why the foundry process is open, we take care about the costumer opinion because there's no point in produce maps that nobody will play.
Here instead we're proposing to add an infinite number of options that a mapmaker will be forced to follow. Result? A day mapmakers will tell you all to go to f*** yourself

A good suggestion is not to ask for new options to make all maps playable in all way that people can imagine but suggest to remove a stupid rule that is old, stupid and restricting both for mapmakers and players. The real good suggestion you guys should do for maps is not to add options but allow mapmakers to develop maps that can be played for specific type of games and this WITHOUT touch or change existing maps.

A final example, then I shut up since I'm writing too much O:)
I'm a pianist....i write a song, i record a song, a sell a cd with my song. You buy my cd. Maybe you don't like it, that's fine. stop buying my cd, tell me that my cds are ugly.....it's all fine...there're plenty cd around to buy. What you can't do is to change it, this because it is MY cd, not your one.

What I'm saying here is that all these suggestion show a sort of lack of respect for people that produce, with the code, the only two things on which this site is build on (apart the great community we have)
But afterall it's normal when we consider have 200+ maps not a privilege but a right.

All the above is not written to offend anyone, far from me offend people.....all the above is just the mapmaker's point of view. Please remember what we do for you all, just that.
Then you're free do implement this suggestion and thousand others and make useless our job, just since I "can control" the foundry rules, then don't expect I will ask to my small community to produce maps taking into account suggestions like this. If you don't like something about maps, then come into the foundry and tell us what you don't like, we're creative people, we are open to changes.

Sorry for the long and maybe boring post but speak for the foundry and protect their community is part of my job here, on the contrary I would resign from my position.
Thanks for your time :)
Nobodies

edit: you fastposted me. Yes, if rules need to be changed, please ask us to change them. but please don't touch existing maps. If they don't fit you can only remove them, NOT change them, it's not part of the agreement we sign.
I do NOT visit this site and I'm NOT Team CC anymore.
All PMs are autobinned.
If you need to contact me, you should already have a way to do it without using this site.
Thanks to those who helped me through the years. :)
Corporal 1st Class thenobodies80
 
Posts: 5558
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:30 am
Location: Not here
Medals: 70
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Bot Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
General Achievement (8) Map Contribution (7) Tournament Contribution (6) General Contribution (17)

Re: New Initial Deployment - Conquest

Postby Metsfanmax on Tue Oct 08, 2013 3:35 pm

tnb, the bottom line is that we're here to provide a service to the community: we want them to play the game that they have fun playing. If they want new game options, we should do our best to accommodate that. I'm sure that you follow this motivation -- why would you spend so much time on a map if you didn't want people to have fun on it? So, as you suggest, the problem here is not the proliferation of game options but rather that every game option applies to every map (with minor exceptions, like not having manual on Feudal-like maps). I don't think that suggesting that we should never add new gameplay options is the way to go. Lots of things that we have added such as Trench Warfare and Nuclear Spoils have added an exciting and dynamic element to this site. The correct solution is either:

1) change the Foundry process so that maps aren't required to be balanced for every game type
or
2) allow mapmakers to decide what game options are allowed on the maps they design.

I suspect that most mapmakers aren't going to have a strong opinion on what game types should be allowed for their maps, so I think that #1 is better*. Your analogy to the rules printed on the board game is limited: there might be only a couple ways to play the Risk board game that come with the box, but my friends and I can do whatever we want with the game board and pieces. Why should CC be in the business of telling people that we can't provide the game types we want? It would be one thing if people just don't want the game option -- but that's what the Suggestions department is for. Your CD analogy is also flawed: it would be like saying that if people aren't going to listen to your CD on an expensive stereo system with noise-cancelling headphones, then they shouldn't be allowed to listen to it at all because it's not how you wanted them to hear it. We want to play your maps -- we just might want to experiment and play it in ways that perhaps you didn't consider. That element of emergence is one of the most beatiful parts of this community.

*In other words, I don't think that mapmakers will ever tell us to f*** ourselves because we are providing more game options to players. We aren't adding an infinite number of them -- just very carefully vetted ones that has substantial community support. Go through this forum and look at all the rejected or archived gameplay suggestions to know that we don't pass along anything but the best ideas. If this is a problem with how the Foundry process works in approving maps, then it's on you to fix that (though of course I'll provide whatever support you need in making that happen). Our job here is just to tell the admins what ways the community wants to play the game. The wishes of the mapmakers counts, but so do the wishes of everyone who actually plays the maps. I would like to hear from some more mapmakers in this thread on whether they object to new game options on their maps.
User avatar
Lieutenant Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 5273
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm
Location: NY
Medals: 43
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1)
Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (7) Clan Achievement (2)
General Contribution (7)

Re: New Initial Deployment - Conquest

Postby DoomYoshi on Tue Oct 08, 2013 3:54 pm

OliverFA wrote:
generalhead wrote:Map makers have worked hard on these maps to make them special and if every map is able to have this starting position it takes away from these great maps that already follow this play.


That's why it has been suggested that this new setting would apply only to non-conquest maps. So, I am still in favour of this idea.

No one wants to "Conquest-ize" Feudal War, but being able to "Conquest-ize" Classic, World 2.1, The Hive, Eurasia, and many others is such an appealing idea that they justify implementing this setting.


Not true. I would mostly use this for Conquest games.
I will not stand for an America where reckless bankers and suicide bombers can make a mockery of our promise for tomorrow.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class DoomYoshi
 
Posts: 5685
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 9:30 pm
Location: Termina Field
Medals: 74
The Championships Gold (1) Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2)
Terminator Achievement (1) Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2)
Fog of War Achievement (3) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (2) General Achievement (8)
Clan Achievement (16) Tournament Contribution (6) General Contribution (5)

Re: New Initial Deployment - Conquest

Postby generalhead on Tue Oct 08, 2013 4:06 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:
koontz1973 wrote:
OliverFA wrote:In fact, that's a very good idea. Being able to introduce objectives for maps without them (again, it makes no sense "objectivizing" objective maps). Each player starts with an objective and has to protect it, because holding 67% of the objectives ends the game.

Why not let map makers make the maps they want? You and everyone else has the opportunity to go into the foundry and comment on the maps during the year it takes to make each map.
Metsfanmax wrote:That is not our fault, we don't control the Foundry approval process (just like we don't set Clan rules or Tournament guidelines).

You are right, you do not set the guidelines for any other department, so why are you trying to circumvent the map making guidelines by forcing this onto map makers. We all live by the rules and map makers take a long time to make the maps perfect as much as they can do anyway. To make them go ahead and try to balance a map for a style of game play that it is not intended to, you will be adding a layer to the process that is already hard enough.


Think about what you're saying: that we should avoid exciting and fun new gameplay options on this site because the Foundry has a process that they don't even like. No, the purpose of the Suggestions department is to tell the admins what the community wants to do. If this creates too much work for the Foundry and they don't want that, then they should change their rules.


I don't believe anyone said they didn't like the foundry process. The foundry process has a purpose to find what the community wants in their maps. And to produce better maps with unique game play. One of the first things you have to produce when starting a map is a reason why the map is unique and should be made. I personally like the process and the fact that every one is able to be involved in making unique maps. The community can go to the foundry and comment on each map on the game play and graphics. I personally don't believe that every map should be able to be played on every setting. You are making special maps generic by making every map being able to have the same game play. That is why basically any one can go into the foundry and try their hand at map making because I believe every map should be different and not all have the same game play.

Metsfanmax wrote:tnb, the bottom line is that we're here to provide a service to the community: we want them to play the game that they have fun playing. If they want new game options, we should do our best to accommodate that. I'm sure that you follow this motivation -- why would you spend so much time on a map if you didn't want people to have fun on it? So, as you suggest, the problem here is not the proliferation of game options but rather that every game option applies to every map (with minor exceptions, like not having manual on Feudal-like maps). I don't think that suggesting that we should never add new gameplay options is the way to go. Lots of things that we have added such as Trench Warfare and Nuclear Spoils have added an exciting and dynamic element to this site. The correct solution is either:


I thinks its great that the community can come together and suggest new game play options. That is why we have these discussions though because it is easy to put an idea out there (which this was not a bad suggestion) but when you throw a suggestion out there you have to think of all of the impacts it will have. And that is what we are doing here.

Metsfanmax wrote:1) change the Foundry process so that maps aren't required to be balanced for every game type
or
2) allow mapmakers to decide what game options are allowed on the maps they design.


1. I don't understand why you keep trying to change the job the foundry does, It is there to make balanced game play. When each map is made the map is put through a process to question every aspect of game play on the map to make the best unique maps that it can.
2) Map makers and the community already do this during the map making process.

Metsfanmax wrote:*In other words, I don't think that mapmakers will ever tell us to f*** ourselves because we are providing more game options to players. We aren't adding an infinite number of them -- just very carefully vetted ones that has substantial community support. Go through this forum and look at all the rejected or archived gameplay suggestions to know that we don't pass along anything but the best ideas. If this is a problem with how the Foundry process works in approving maps, then it's on you to fix that (though of course I'll provide whatever support you need in making that happen). Our job here is just to tell the admins what ways the community wants to play the game. The wishes of the mapmakers counts, but so do the wishes of everyone who actually plays the maps. I would like to hear from some more mapmakers in this thread on whether they object to new game options on their maps.


I personally don't like playing the same map all of the time. I like the option of playing different maps for different reasons. By making the game play options for the maps the same you are making all maps the same. During the foundry process the map makers like to have options to make maps that are different. They don't like to produce the same map all of the time. That is what you are doing by trying to pass this. You are taking away their option to make unique maps. Then all maps become the same.
Last edited by generalhead on Tue Oct 08, 2013 5:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sergeant generalhead
 
Posts: 885
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 10:09 pm
Medals: 64
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (2) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (7) Challenge Achievement (1)
Tournament Contribution (14) General Contribution (1)

Re: New Initial Deployment - Conquest

Postby thenobodies80 on Tue Oct 08, 2013 4:12 pm

Your post makes sense Mets....said that 12 players were implemented with almost zero request on possible issues or opinions from my dept nor from mapmakers. I talk about what happens and happened not about how it should work. We're working right now to understand how to change the foundry rules to make balanced maps for 12 players.
Imo this should have been done before the implemention of the suggestion, not after. This is work together.

I'm very happy if you want to work together with mapmakers and CAs to make the game more enjoyable for the community. Please, don't be afraid to send me a PM if i miss a suggestion about maps or if you need whatever input! :)

What i said is to ALWAYS ask at least to the blue guy (or better to the whole mapmakers community) if the suggestion can effect maps.
Sure we can and we should change unfriendly/old rules if they don't fit anymore...remove that stupid rule is at the top of my own list (always thought it is stupid :) ), the issue is that is not just delete few words written somewhere.

What I'm asking right now, specially for this suggestion is to not make it apply backward, with 200+ maps, some options, like this one, can and should be applied only on new maps.(or at least when the new option fit the map)
Just that....i think that with the pace of maps we produce a compromise is the way to go. :P

Metsfanmax wrote:If this is a problem with how the Foundry process works in approving maps, then it's on you to fix that

To be honest this is has never been on me (maybe you don't visit the foundry so frequently to understand in what state of total abandonment we were left for many years, afterall we did maps anyway so why bother about us)...it took 2 years for me to have "1vs1 maps only allowed", I coded 2 maps gallery alone and we don't have an official one yet on CC....and these are just few examples....i hope it will be on me in future, I'm confident it will be. But trust me, I've never been 100% allowed to rule the process...it wasn'ts in that way...i would have paid to have such power to satisfy all mapmakers and community desires.
All I had was...we will see, it's in the pipeline..etc etc
Sound familiar? ;)

But I stop to complain and I'm looking to work with you guys to make this place better and more enjoyable for everyone.
Nobodies
I do NOT visit this site and I'm NOT Team CC anymore.
All PMs are autobinned.
If you need to contact me, you should already have a way to do it without using this site.
Thanks to those who helped me through the years. :)
Corporal 1st Class thenobodies80
 
Posts: 5558
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:30 am
Location: Not here
Medals: 70
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Bot Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
General Achievement (8) Map Contribution (7) Tournament Contribution (6) General Contribution (17)

PreviousNext

Return to Suggestions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron