Moderator: Community Team
JCR wrote:One overall suggestion though is simple, There are a LOT of maps on this site. Perhaps at this point the focus should be on quality over quantity being produced.
spiesr wrote:I think that a feeling which keeps many people away from posting in that foundry is that the foundry would not appreciate someone going in and posting on half the maps something along the lines of "this map is fundamentally flawed and development on it should stop."
Shannon Apple wrote:I've read most of this... Problem is, if you are going to go into a critique thread, and that is basically what all of the "map in progress" threads are, you can't just be a butt and tell people that their maps are shit. I would imagine that if people got chased off it was for unhelpful and hurtful comments that help no one. Helpful critique is that which tells someone what you think is wrong with their map, and suggest ways of fixing it. If you think it's shit, but don't actually care to explain in a civilized manner what is wrong with it, then chances are, no one is going to be willing to listen to you. When an artist creates something, they have put their time and effort into it. You have to appreciate that fact and go about it in a manner that shows that you are appreciating their efforts and want to help them create something awesome from the draft that they've put up.
USA 2.1 is not the worst map on this site. It's really busy, but organised busy, if that makes any sense. I actually like it's gameplay and don't have any issues working out what hits what. That's majorly important. There are some maps that have been created using bevel and emboss, that are truly horrible, like Ancient Greece. Philly map is just horrible and I refuse to play it because I can't read it. Someone tried to do something cute with fonts and it doesn't work.
ManBungalow wrote:USA 2.1 is one of those maps which starts to make a little more sense when you actually play a game on it and see the troops on it in context, rather than trying to discern meaning in it in one glance from the map image alone.
Dukasaur wrote: Bamboo Jack is a map that is very complex and many people hate. However, the Bridge on the River Kwai was one of my favourite novels as a kid, and I've also read other novels from that zone of conflict, so when I discovered Bamboo Jack I was determined to understand it at all costs, and I actually became fairly good at it right from the beginning. Still, it was my predisposition, because I loved the novel, that made it possible for me to love the map. If I had approached it with a "WTF is this shite?" kind of attitude, I might have hated it.
Dukasaur wrote:
1982 is a classic example. I absolutely hated it the first time, because I was totally lost. But after a few games, I now understand what connects to what, and I'm starting to enjoy that map. Lunar War would be in that category, and Jamaica, and a bunch of others.
Hunter S. Thompson wrote:The Edge... There is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over..
owenshooter wrote:Dukasaur wrote: Bamboo Jack is a map that is very complex and many people hate. However, the Bridge on the River Kwai was one of my favourite novels as a kid, and I've also read other novels from that zone of conflict, so when I discovered Bamboo Jack I was determined to understand it at all costs, and I actually became fairly good at it right from the beginning. Still, it was my predisposition, because I loved the novel, that made it possible for me to love the map. If I had approached it with a "WTF is this shite?" kind of attitude, I might have hated it.
no comparison... bamboo jack is a very pretty map with interesting game play... USA 2.1 is a plop of shit... the black jesus has spoken...-el Jesus negro
Dukasaur wrote:USA 2.1, despite its size, is a good, straightforward map that's easy to understand.
DiM wrote:Dukasaur wrote:USA 2.1, despite its size, is a good, straightforward map that's easy to understand.
while the gameplay is indeed straightforward with no gimmicks whatsoever, the map might appear overwhelming at first due to the large number of terits cramped in a rather small space, especially on the small map.
so at first glance all you see is terits and armies everywhere and that makes some people not like it.
thenobodies80 wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:inb4: "myeh, myeh, myeh, you should've complained earlier." I'm sure people have already complained about its appearance.
How did this map end up like it is? What the f*ck happened at the Foundry?
Exactly for the reason you posted, almost no one complained about it.
This map reached the Beta stage on April 2013, the 17th viewtopic.php?f=358&t=152467&start=525#p4140050
This map was quenched on March 2014, the 16th viewtopic.php?f=358&t=152467&start=720#p4444231
In 11 months almost no one has expressed a so hard and, let me say, frank opinion of the map. I remember when i send the files to BMO, he expressed a few concerns about the map, concerns that in part i share. But considering that we were just discussing between us two, we had to move on and just wait and see if our concerns were shared also by other players.
It has not happened.
Well, in this case what i can do? nothing! My role is to oversee the process, no rule it.
I will never stop to say to people like you or owenshooter to come to the foundry and tell us if a product (a map) is shit or if it has something really wrong.
We really need people who speaks frankly; the only thing I always ask is to not come there and just say: "this map is ugly, i don't like it." but at least care to explain why you don't like it and/or post what you suggest to make it better.
What happend to the Foundry? Simple. We're suffering for the "old days decisions" and "technical limitations".
Let me explain in detail these 2 elements:
- Old days decisions: Those of you who were here in the old days are well aware about what i'm talking about. There has been a time in which there was a sort of "war" between the foundry group and some CC members. People who disliked other people without a real reason, people who was kicked out from the foundry for just speaking out of the group. People who stoppped to listen to the others just because "they didn't know what they were talking about".....all these things caused an half death of the foundry.
Today I want to stress about the fact that that type of behaviour has been "banned" from the foundry, in part because the people who caused and promoted that behaviour is is no longer here.
I don't want to accuse this group of people for "the hard time" we are having, but honestly think that since you are not able to draw a map makes you unable to say if something is wrong it's a nonsense.
If it's true that draw maps require skill, it's also true that the final product must be played. And, like a normal board game, you need customers and you need to listen to them; on the contrary you will end to play your map alone.
If you see finally we're going in that direction, we don't have behind the scenes maps, we have a testing ground now (everyone can take part to it), we still have a public discussion, we still force mapmakers to respond in a thoughtfull manner to all suggestions and take them into consideration.
Certainly there's more to do, the foundry needs a long cure, a necessary cure that will require time and lot of work. In any case it is better than decide to run away and make your own toy just because you don't like the one you have now.
So, there's a light at the end of the tunnel. The foundry is no longer the place "we are better than you so shut up". Come there and suggest, say if you think a map is ugly, say what you like and what you don't like, help us to make the product you will play better. If you post something usefull, objective and true (so not just say this map sucks and run away) I will be always on your side and I will work to make sure that a compromise is found. My #1 rule is: if you don't want to listen what people say, draw maps for yourself to play at home with your friends, not here because the foundry is a open process with a precise task.
-technical limitations: A map like Usa 2.1 needs more space, a different UI. Infact, even if I fighted a lot to have a different UI to allow larger maps...at some point, after a strike and other 1000 post/PMs to admins i stopped to ask and waste time. Probably it was my fault. Probably I had to say to isaiah40 to wait because there's no technical support to make a so large map clear enough with what we had, probably in that case the friend behind the foreman has step in and didn't find the way to cut a friend's project. I apologize for this.
Said that i see there's a lot of people who like the map as it is now and maybe just reply to you saying that we have so many maps that you can live without playing this one could seem a dumb reply, but since i can't change what it has happend in past, the only thing that we can do is to post in the foundry and tell to mapmakers when a map has something wrong, without any fear instead of wait a map is quenched and then start a topic about it in GD.
Guys, i really want the people stop to think about the foundry as an automated process in which maps are done in any case, we need you all, we need your thoughts. And don't tell me you don't know what to say or what it's needed. Comment a map is one of the easier things you can do, it requires just a bit of time. It's like when you are in a shop and you decide to buy a product instead of another. There could be some reasons (techincal, liking, etc) and maybe you are not an expert on all these aspects, but, in any case, you always know why you decide to buy something. What the foundry needs is to know why you will "buy or not" the next map.
Essentially this is what happened to the foundry in the last few years, no one cared about it.
Now, if you really care about map production (and i think you do) please come into the foundry and tell us we're doing wrong.
You're always welcome.
Nobodies
ManBungalow wrote:USA 2.1 is one of those maps which starts to make a little more sense when you actually play a game on it and see the troops on it in context, rather than trying to discern meaning in it in one glance from the map image alone.
Dukasaur wrote:ManBungalow wrote:USA 2.1 is one of those maps which starts to make a little more sense when you actually play a game on it and see the troops on it in context, rather than trying to discern meaning in it in one glance from the map image alone.
You could say that about a lot of the larger and/or more complex maps. There are plenty of maps that I hated on my first time through, because I couldn't figure out what was happening, but once I got to know them I began to like them.
1982 is a classic example. I absolutely hated it the first time, because I was totally lost. But after a few games, I now understand what connects to what, and I'm starting to enjoy that map. Lunar War would be in that category, and Jamaica, and a bunch of others. Pot Mosbi is just sitting on the cusp for me right now. I got creamed the first couple of times on that map, didn't get the point, but I just won my first game on it, and I'm starting to understand how to read the legend, and slowly but surely I'm starting to like it.
It really boils down to whether you're willing to invest the thought to know what is going on, and a lot of that is a matter of personal taste and bias. Bamboo Jack is a map that is very complex and many people hate. However, the Bridge on the River Kwai was one of my favourite novels as a kid, and I've also read other novels from that zone of conflict, so when I discovered Bamboo Jack I was determined to understand it at all costs, and I actually became fairly good at it right from the beginning. Still, it was my predisposition, because I loved the novel, that made it possible for me to love the map. If I had approached it with a "WTF is this shite?" kind of attitude, I might have hated it.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Dukasaur wrote:ManBungalow wrote:USA 2.1 is one of those maps which starts to make a little more sense when you actually play a game on it and see the troops on it in context, rather than trying to discern meaning in it in one glance from the map image alone.
You could say that about a lot of the larger and/or more complex maps. There are plenty of maps that I hated on my first time through, because I couldn't figure out what was happening, but once I got to know them I began to like them.
1982 is a classic example. I absolutely hated it the first time, because I was totally lost. But after a few games, I now understand what connects to what, and I'm starting to enjoy that map. Lunar War would be in that category, and Jamaica, and a bunch of others. Pot Mosbi is just sitting on the cusp for me right now. I got creamed the first couple of times on that map, didn't get the point, but I just won my first game on it, and I'm starting to understand how to read the legend, and slowly but surely I'm starting to like it.
It really boils down to whether you're willing to invest the thought to know what is going on, and a lot of that is a matter of personal taste and bias. Bamboo Jack is a map that is very complex and many people hate. However, the Bridge on the River Kwai was one of my favourite novels as a kid, and I've also read other novels from that zone of conflict, so when I discovered Bamboo Jack I was determined to understand it at all costs, and I actually became fairly good at it right from the beginning. Still, it was my predisposition, because I loved the novel, that made it possible for me to love the map. If I had approached it with a "WTF is this shite?" kind of attitude, I might have hated it.
Yeah, but 1982 doesn't look like shit. The easier imaging helps one render 'what the hell is going on'. USA 2.1 doesn't have that.
macbone wrote:It's a fun team map on fog. There's lot of places to lie low, take over a few states, sneak in some bonuses. The gameplay factor is pretty high for me.
isaiah40 wrote:In response to this thread, late due to RL, this may not be my best map, as thenobodies80 has mentioned we really need a better UI for this. The names in the legend "COULD" fit on the map, but would anyone be able to read the names easily. This is the best alternative I could think of. Now IF others had any better ideas during the time it was going through the process, then I could have done something about it at that time. IF people had come in and made good suggestions while in the foundry, then, again, I could have done something about it at that time.
As I stated, due to RL, there won't be any updates from me anytime soon or in the future. Maybe if I have some spare time I can do some fixing, or if bigWham gives permission for me to go wider - oh wait, no one will like a "bigger" map - then I can make more room and get rid of some of the city names in the legend to "clean" it up. IF that can be done I would be willing to possibly redo the graphics at the same time. bigWham would have to authorize the larger size. So if anyone wants it to happen then petition him and thenobodies80 to make it possible.
isaiah40
Mr Changsha wrote:Anyone keen on joining some of these are welcome to contact me. I'm aiming to set up four or five more 12 man games on either standard or 12 man dubs.
Return to Conquer Club Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users