Quality control for new maps

[jiminski]

A testing area, testing status, what-have-you testing has been in front of Lack's nose for at least a year. Andy and others have stated this prior in the thread. It's not coming as of yet for whatever reason, so the best thing we can do (as has been stated before) is to get more people taking a close look.

yeap i Understand TaC and no one is saying that the map-makers do not want this and have not fought for it ... but does the previous idea from chip not negate any need for difficulty? Is it not a makeshift solution which Lack can simply click his fingers and make it so?

if so not having it makes no sense.... if i have missed something as to the ease of implementing a test area within the confounds of existing site infrastructure then fine.
but with my simple and non-techi mind, what Chip suggests solves the problem without too much difficulty?

[gdeangel]

I see this thread is still going. Wanted to just chip in something... I actually did go and make a suggestion about supermax months ago when it was in the early stages. The response was clearly missing of the tactical perspective I had, but, because really all the comments amount to are an intuition about what will play well, I figure there is not much that can be done except just repeat myself to try to convince the designer, whose using his own tactical perspective. So I just let it go, still hoping that maybe he's right and I'm wrong.

Like so many maps, Supermax is a great concept - very innovative - but just too much of a stretch for most people to intuit what it will take to balance the gameplay (including myself). I have some ideas for complex maps, one being the Vietnam War map, but honestly, even though I might be able to get a proof-of-concept designed in my head, I would really not want to have something like that released to the general population with my name on it without actual testing, for fear that players who know their shit play it and come back saying stuff like "I'll never play that map again - tried it and it was crap".

So, not only is the lack of testing hurting the maps that get released, it is hampering what people worried about their reputation are willing to try with maps...

[jiminski]

I see this thread is still going. Wanted to just chip in something... I actually did go and make a suggestion about supermax months ago when it was in the early stages. The response was clearly missing of the tactical perspective I had, but, because really all the comments amount to are an intuition about what will play well, I figure there is not much that can be done except just repeat myself to try to convince the designer, whose using his own tactical perspective. So I just let it go, still hoping that maybe he's right and I'm wrong.

Like so many maps, Supermax is a great concept - very innovative - but just too much of a stretch for most people to intuit what it will take to balance the gameplay (including myself). I have some ideas for complex maps, one being the Vietnam War map, but honestly, even though I might be able to get a proof-of-concept designed in my head, I would really not want to have something like that released to the general population with my name on it without actual testing, for fear that players who know their shit play it and come back saying stuff like "I'll never play that map again - tried it and it was crap".

So, not only is the lack of testing hurting the maps that get released, it is hampering what people worried about their reputation are willing to try with maps...

Oh bugger reputation .. i had an idea based on (SCI-FI) Planetary terraforming, with a kind of built in Round/countdown taking troops away if certain resources were not captured in time. I posted the idea in map ideas .. (which is the foundries equivalent of Hull ... if you are there.. you're lost)

I posted it and passed it to a couple of Map makers ... who knows! i am sure nothing will come of it but to see it get made would far outweigh any criticism... and i would be in the Foundry beating out the idea with anyone who wanted to make it better or arguing with anyone who just wanted to bad-mouth it prior to Quenching!

So i agree with the cartographers that the more people who go to the foundry; the more voices of dissent and ideas floating around, the better maps will be.
But i still think Chips idea for a simple testing facility would work. I am not technical but Chip know his stuff. If this exact solution has already been put to Lack then i will shut-up. If not, give it a go?

[edbeard]

So, not only is the lack of testing hurting the maps that get released, it is hampering what people worried about their reputation are willing to try with maps...

you've got us pegged. that's why my map with rainbows and teddy bears will never see the light of day.

[mibi]

Like so many maps, Supermax is a great concept - very innovative - but just too much of a stretch for most people to intuit what it will take to balance the gameplay (including myself).

um.. Supermax IS balanced. People are running 1v1 games consistently, just like in Arms Race. If it were unbalanced the people would be able to win consistently.

Perhaps you should actually ... oh i dunno... hmm... how about, play an actual game on the map before you deem the gameplay broken. It will really help your argument out a lot.

[firth4eva]

Like so many maps, Supermax is a great concept - very innovative - but just too much of a stretch for most people to intuit what it will take to balance the gameplay (including myself).

um.. Supermax IS balanced. People are running 1v1 games consistently, just like in Arms Race. If it were unbalanced the people would be able to win consistently.

Perhaps you should actually ... oh i dunno... hmm... how about, play an actual game on the map before you deem the gameplay broken. It will really help your argument out a lot.

I like arms race. I don't like that prison one.

[hulmey]

Like so many maps, Supermax is a great concept - very innovative - but just too much of a stretch for most people to intuit what it will take to balance the gameplay (including myself).

um.. Supermax IS balanced. People are running 1v1 games consistently, just like in Arms Race. If it were unbalanced the people would be able to win consistently.

Perhaps you should actually ... oh i dunno... hmm... how about, play an actual game on the map before you deem the gameplay broken. It will really help your argument out a lot.

I disagree, its not very balance. Not when you go second and start with 4-7 armies less! It happend to me twice now!!!

[jiminski]

Firstly the designated testers would be trusted volunteers.
So now we have a list of players.


1. If someone tries to join a game, the site looks up this list (could put it in the database or hardcode it) and decides whether or not to allow the players to join.Freemiums are prevented from joining speed games - same sort of code. (I said New recruits earlier but meant freemiums).Also New recruits are hidden from Team games - another example of selective hiding.

2. I was thinking CC sanctioned multis ( they don't have to be premium. Each tester tests 4 maps at a time. Only gameplay is relevant).
........... You could also write similar code to prevent these accounts from playing anything but Test maps.

so is this feasible or what?

[barterer2002]

just for furture reference, any map with over 60 territories probably isn't the best on 1v1.

I have to disagree. The larger maps can be great 1v1 games

[jiminski]

I realise that the original posters attitude was not conducive to a reasoned meeting of minds.. but then a little spice got everyone in here for a few moments; spitting fires of false accusation and shitting thunderbolts of cartographic iniquity!

But i can't help thinking that this thread has developed into another wasted opportunity!

[PepperJack]

I realise that the original posters attitude was not conducive to a reasoned meeting of minds.. but then a little spice got everyone in here for a few moments; spitting fires of false accusation and shitting thunderbolts of cartographic iniquity!

But i can't help thinking that this thread has developed into another wasted opportunity!

"Wasted" might be overstating it. If even a few more people are venturing into foundry with unpixelated ideas, then I'd deem this thread a success.

We also ended up with a fairly simple (so far as I can tell) testing/beta process idea courtesy chipv. Now we just need a higher up to tell us if its greenlighted or shut down.

[jiminski]

I realise that the original posters attitude was not conducive to a reasoned meeting of minds.. but then a little spice got everyone in here for a few moments; spitting fires of false accusation and shitting thunderbolts of cartographic iniquity!

But i can't help thinking that this thread has developed into another wasted opportunity!

"Wasted" might be overstating it. If even a few more people are venturing into foundry with unpixelated ideas, then I'd deem this thread a success.

We also ended up with a fairly simple (so far as I can tell) testing/beta process idea courtesy chipv. Now we just need a higher up to tell us if its greenlighted or shut down.

that's right Pepper... Chips idea was poo-pooed and it seems lost (that is somewhat the crux of my frustration) due to it not emanating from the Foundry and their having tried everything before.... Lost in back and forths about minutiae nonsense.

now as i say this is largely Angels fault due to his gladiatorial demeanour! And i really do not agree with much of what he said but he said it and got people in here, sometimes the start of a vibrant discussion is feisty!
If the foundry wants external input, here is an opportunity to discuss (without perception of map advertising or Forum clutter) in a more visited forum.

By the same token if GD want the right to pass comment, then more constructive words need to be found.

Some good ideas could be found together in GD before everyone shuffles back to their respective corners to lick their reopened wounds.

[hulmey]

IT really isnt chips idea guys!! Lack knows he can do this, but he doesnt want to! Its be discussed before, so lets stop beating a dead horse

[jiminski]

IT really isnt chips idea guys!! Lack knows he can do this, but he doesnt want to! Its be discussed before, so lets stop beating a dead horse

well i had asked 4 times for that confirmation... you made me kill the horse... and then beat it.

Regardless of that Hulmey, dialogue would be sensible rather than petty bickering.. hah! who am i trying to kid!

bicker away

[PepperJack]

IT really isnt chips idea guys!! Lack knows he can do this, but he doesnt want to! Its be discussed before, so lets stop beating a dead horse

You're right. Let's stop asking for a better product. Its not like anyone paid. How's about that rating system though?

[hulmey]

IT really isnt chips idea guys!! Lack knows he can do this, but he doesnt want to! Its be discussed before, so lets stop beating a dead horse

You're right. Let's stop asking for a better product. Its not like anyone paid. How's about that rating system though?

Lost cause. I went blue in the face trying to push the community feedback system! Nothing happened there either

[jiminski]

IT really isnt chips idea guys!! Lack knows he can do this, but he doesnt want to! Its be discussed before, so lets stop beating a dead horse

You're right. Let's stop asking for a better product. Its not like anyone paid. How's about that rating system though?

Lost cause. I went blue in the face trying to push the community feedback system! Nothing happened there either

yeap, heh i am going to stop these stupid bloody crusades for truth justice and the Canadian way! ...
..But i do not understand this, if the solution outlined by Chip was put to Lack by the foundry before, why is it not there for the Map makers to use? ... I am a technical buffoon but this seems very easy to implement using what is already in place.. to me at least..

it is frustrating here sometimes... can someone explain why it is not as easy as i see it?

[lackattack]

FYI - I am seriously looking into edbeard's solution right now...

[jiminski]

Firstly the designated testers would be trusted volunteers.
So now we have a list of players.


1. If someone tries to join a game, the site looks up this list (could put it in the database or hardcode it) and decides whether or not to allow the players to join.Freemiums are prevented from joining speed games - same sort of code. (I said New recruits earlier but meant freemiums).Also New recruits are hidden from Team games - another example of selective hiding.

2. I was thinking CC sanctioned multis ( they don't have to be premium. Each tester tests 4 maps at a time. Only gameplay is relevant).
........... You could also write similar code to prevent these accounts from playing anything but Test maps.

so is this feasible or what?

thanks Lack, I am never sure if you are watching... ; )
I think the above is slightly different though, it may be more makeshift but in my very simple mind, it allows for the same thing without you having to alter anything fundamental ... you can just tinker within what you already have? (and do it really easily and quickly.. heheh i'll even make the tea if you like!)

[BaldAdonis]

So, where are all the gameplay experts? There are over 12,000 users with Standard Achievement medals, and 2,000 with Cross-map Achievement medals. There are 338 users with more points than me. I lose more games than I win. And yet, for some reason, it is left to me, the mapmaker, and (if we're lucky) two or three other foundry regulars to figure out if a map is going to work. It's extremely frustrating that so few CC users care to visit the Foundry and talk about how their future maps will play, yet so many are quick to attack when two of our nearly 100 maps are released with gameplay flaws.

I'd love to help, but when 19/20 posts are on things I don't care about at all and just distract the mapmaker from game ideas, I get frustrated and leave. Why not have a specific time in the map development where you can figure out the gameplay? Nice pictures aren't important in that step, and it only makes it harder to change once more drafts are produced and people are asking for minute pixel shifts.

[chipv]

FYI - I am seriously looking into edbeard's solution right now...

Great stuff, lack, this is excellent news!

[jiminski]

So, where are all the gameplay experts? There are over 12,000 users with Standard Achievement medals, and 2,000 with Cross-map Achievement medals. There are 338 users with more points than me. I lose more games than I win. And yet, for some reason, it is left to me, the mapmaker, and (if we're lucky) two or three other foundry regulars to figure out if a map is going to work. It's extremely frustrating that so few CC users care to visit the Foundry and talk about how their future maps will play, yet so many are quick to attack when two of our nearly 100 maps are released with gameplay flaws.

I'd love to help, but when 19/20 posts are on things I don't care about at all and just distract the mapmaker from game ideas, I get frustrated and leave. Why not have a specific time in the map development where you can figure out the gameplay? Nice pictures aren't important in that step, and it only makes it harder to change once more drafts are produced and people are asking for minute pixel shifts.

or maybe a specific area to discuss and work out general gameplay innovations (not specific to a map in the process of design but to help inspire prior to the start of new maps).... That's why i mentioned a dummy/sample map which could be tailored with the assistance of a willing code genius; to code and advise what is possible with current Xml and what will be in the future.

The most innovative gameplay maps are probably AOR? and could not possibly have come about without the mapmakers having something out of the ordinary in mind, prior to initiating the Foundry process. (i could be wrong) The basic gameplay of those maps did not come into being on the run, from 3rd party advice in the developmental stage.

[yeti_c]

FYI - I am seriously looking into edbeard's solution right now...

Great stuff, lack, this is excellent news!

Totally agree.

C.

[owenshooter]

FYI - I am seriously looking into edbeard's solution right now...

that is what makes this site so freaking great... thanks lack...-0

[jiminski]

FYI - I am seriously looking into edbeard's solution right now...

that is what makes this site so freaking great... thanks lack...-0

having studied both solutions, i think Chips solves more of the problems Lack had with having a test area.
but if lack is happy with edbeard's and so are the maps, then great .. how long will this take to get operational? I think the map-makers deserve a treat for all their hard work.