Conquer Club

thenobodies80 wrote: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.

Just a quick opinion about this. I think that 12 player maps is one of the most exciting things that have happened in CC for long time. Despite is good to think things before doing them, planning too much has the risk of never doing anything. It's my humble opinion that CC suffers from extreme bureaucracy (and I am not talking about the Foundry, but about all CC). The new management seems to be willing to set things in motion again. Perhaps is a good moment to reconsider things that previously were considered to be set in stone. The diminishing number of players says that things have to be done in a different way.

just to get back to the main point of conquest from these side debates, there seems to be a lot of hate from mapmakers for this option and a list of others yet to be or already implemented. Manual does not work on every map and I can see conquest not working on every map but for me a map like Clanedemonium with conquest as a option in contrast to standard or manual would be ideal.
As to the CD analogy I spent years DJing we buy Cd's and change them all the time based on what the public wants just saying that is a horrible example and counterproductive. It seems people with moderate positions of recognition are up in arms and coming out of the woodwork with hate for such a simple option. WHy the hate for something so little that is not a forced overall gameplay change? if you would not play simply do not play do not do everything in your power to prevent others from enjoying another facet that many have tried at home but here we could have different maps and fog. People fear and hate what is different and avoid change like the plague but if the change has no effect on you mind your business and place your energy into things that do effect you IMO.

Manual doesn't affect things like starting positions, conquest option does. Sorry i think you know a very little about how and why maps are done (no offense)

There's no hate in my words, but desire of more communication if something affects so much what we do.
Maybe you can call it criticism, but certainly it's not hate.

Then, I'm free to express my opinion like any one else here...the fact I'm the foundry foreman doesn't mean i can't have an opinion about a suggestion...remember i'm also a user and player of this site like you, please don't start to complain about the fact my name has a color, because in suggestions it counts nothing. If it counts so much for you please suggest to implement something to remove my color when i'm not posting in the foundry, I would support it.

Moreover I never though my opinion can stop or prevent from adding an option if the community want it. Far from me think that, last word belongs always to the community.
Have it implemented for a limited and public discussed number of maps makes it much much more better (as confirmation i voted the third option in the other post you did in GD), although I'm not a big fan of this suggestion in any case.

I stated my personal opinion, since it seems un welcomed and I sound so unfriendly (:?) just because i'm not pro suggestion, i'll shut up and i'll come back to post just in the foundry.
Next time I'll just vote instead of explain things.

Goodnight everyone

thenobodies80 wrote: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.

One of the main things I want to get done in my tenure as Suggestions team lead is to work on our (mostly non-existent) relationship with the Foundry. I will definitely be in touch with you in private in the near future so we can work out the best way to work together.

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.

This is one of the things we can discuss. It honestly had not occurred to me that mapmakers might be upset about how new game options affect their maps -- thank you for bringing it to my attention. I'll work on a process for implementation that requires comments from Foundry, Clans, Tournaments, etc. if it affects their department.

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.

I understand what you are asking -- but also keep in mind that probably the reason why most people want this is to be able to play existing maps with a new touch. I for one am very excited about the idea of benig able to play Classic with this Conquest setting. We can definitely compromise, but it should probably be closer to picking a set of core maps that everyone plays that we can do this for (Classic, World 2.1, etc.) and avoiding specialty maps that were fine tuned for specific gameplay that wasn't Conquest-like.

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?

This is a major problem because it has never really been on us either. When I say it's "on you," what I really mean is that in an ideal world the Foundry leader would control the Foundry rules and Suggestions is working on site updates, so that Suggestions doesn't have to also be responsible for changing your rules. Believe me, I want you to have control over your department and I'll put in whatever good words are necessary to have that happen under the new administration.

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

There's a lot to discuss and we can take it outside of this thread. Consider it noted that this will have a substantial effect on the mapmaking process and we will definitely consider that in deciding whether to submit this, and if so in deciding how to implement it.

STICKIED

I'd like to get a little more discussion and consensus on this. I think this could be a great new gameplay, but the details definitely need to be hashed out.

in retrospect how would this idea be any different to implement then a tourney game where every territ is occupied by a player? If anything making it work on maps should be easier then said tourney game s it will not require active player rather just neutral ones.