Deciding Map Complexity

[wcaclimbing]

I like the format used in the first post.
Simple, Moderate, Complex, Extreme.

The list would just have to be updated to hold the new maps.

[gdeangel]

I don't think AoR I and Feudal should be considered together among the "highest complexity" maps. They are only complex once you initially understand the setup, but after than, the actual strategy is pretty simple in most cases. They have an intimidation factor for noobs because they have unconventional rules, but putting them as complex in a searching filter would just mean that these easiest places to start the castle type maps would get overlooked as beginners explore the site. They should be moderate IMHO.

[edbeard]

no no no. that only makes it more uhh complex. three is the best way to go. either you're simple, complex or somewhere in between.

if a new member comes across 8 thoughts, they'll put it in that complex group. maybe it'll be borderline but it'd be in that group nonetheless.

Remember this was done to separate maps based on how they'd be seen by new members. Something might be 'moderate' after they've played it several times but it'd be complex on a first viewing.

now you're proposing moving maps without consulting the rules I've setup. If you're against the rule itself that's one thing but if it fits in with my rule, then it can't be moved. If I'm going to do this, I have to be given reign to do it how I see fit. Let me post them again...

The RULES:

Simple - maps that either contain no xml/gameplay quirks or contain less than several one-way borders.

Moderate – maps that contain a few xml/gameplay quirks but for the most part stay true to the ‘classic’ style gameplay

Complex – maps that either contain many xml/gameplay quirks, stray far from classic style gameplay, contain xml/gameplay quirks which are considered ‘complex’ by themselves, or have a presentation that is deemed to be potentially confusing



the whole having territories that don't belong to any continent thing is why CCU is moderate (possibly this should be considered to be similar to one-way borders in terms of simplicity). World 2.1 for the same reason and the double bonuses thing.

8 thoughts I've explained. crossword is debatable. I put i there because of the 'presentation that is deemed to be potentially confusing' rule.





So, debate the rules (and whether maps fit those rules) or else I won't respond to your post.

[edbeard]

the problem with four groups is you have to figure out what goes in to 'extreme', 'complex' and 'moderate' then debate what actually fits what group.

3 groups means less 'rules' to figure out and less debate.

simple, complex, or in between

[edbeard]

I don't think AoR I and Feudal should be considered together among the "highest complexity" maps. They are only complex once you initially understand the setup, but after than, the actual strategy is pretty simple in most cases. They have an intimidation factor for noobs because they have unconventional rules, but putting them as complex in a searching filter would just mean that these easiest places to start the castle type maps would get overlooked as beginners explore the site. They should be moderate IMHO.

this goes under the "stray far from classic gameplay' rule. new players aren't going to exactly know what to do with a game where they start only on one territory

[ZeakCytho]

The RULES:

Simple - maps that either contain no xml/gameplay quirks or contain less than several one-way borders.

Moderate – maps that contain a few xml/gameplay quirks but for the most part stay true to the ‘classic’ style gameplay

Complex – maps that either contain many xml/gameplay quirks, stray far from classic style gameplay, contain xml/gameplay quirks which are considered ‘complex’ by themselves, or have a presentation that is deemed to be potentially confusing

I don't have a problem with these 3 categories as you've defined them, except that I think it's not nuanced enough. Adding a fourth category makes it so that someone looking at this list can better see where they fit skill-wise. Yes, adding an extra rule makes things a bit harder for us right now, but in the end I think it will produce a better list and will be more helpful to anyone looking at this, especially newbs. If you disagree, what I wrote below will be useless.

My rules would be as follow:
Simple - maps that either contain no xml/gameplay quirks or contain less than several one-way borders. You can understand these maps just by looking at the board for a short amount of time.

Moderate – maps that contain a few xml/gameplay quirks but for the most part stay true to the ‘classic’ style gameplay. You will need to glance at the legend to understand how these maps work.

Complex – maps that either contain numerous xml/gameplay quirks, stray from classic style gameplay, or have a presentation that is deemed to be potentially confusing. You will need to study the legend carefully to understand how these maps work.

Extreme - maps that either contain many xml/gameplay quirks, stray far from classic gameplay, or contain xml/gameplay quirks which are considered "complex" by themselves. You will need the study the legend carefully to understand how these maps work, and may need to refer back to it numerous times to confirm certain aspects of gameplay.

[wcaclimbing]

EDIT: I agree with zeak, but I'd prefer the rules to be written in a less technical language, avoiding references to XML and gameplay tweaks if possible, to avoid confusion for new people. The rules he listed are good, I'd just like them to be explained with more simple language.

---- v Original Post v ----

I'm still a fan of the original set of rules:

1) Simple - If you understand risk you can just read the continent values, and jump in and play.

2) Moderate - If you understand risk you can understand this, but you'll need to read a rule or two in the legend first to get it. You could probably still jump in and play and be alright though.

3) Complex - It can be understood, but it make take you some reading and a bit of playing before you fully get it, there are many rules. Can't just jump in and play without reading or you'll miss things.

4) Extreme - You pretty much need BOB or have an avid background in strategy games before you can understand this map. Even with reading through all the rules you could still be confused and miss things without several play throughs.

Four categories leaves enough space for the maps that you can't decide which category they belong in.

And at least the four sections explanations would be easier to understand, especially for a new player that doesn't understand what "XML and gameplay quirks" are, when they might not understand how regular gameplay works anyway. Plus, the four categories give clear, simple explanations of what is in each section, making it easy for a new player to decide what section is right for them without having to worry about "gameplay quirks"

Having only three categories would mean that AoR Might would be put into the same section as Waterloo. Those two maps are on opposite ends of the spectrum when you are talking about complexity. Although AoR is complicated, Waterloo and other similar maps completely blow it away. Having the 4th "extreme" category would help solve that, because less complex maps get the regular "complex" category and the others get "extreme".

So, my vote is still for the four categories.

[gdeangel]

I echo the need for more nuance. You have defined "moderate" so narrowly, it seems like you do need to have a fourth category for stuff like AoR1 and Feudal. They just are not that hard to play once you get over the initial concept of castle game play. You might go with:

Beginner = classic in a different shape package
Novice = your current defn of moderate
Expert = very distant cousin of classic / entry level specialized play (i.e., overlapping bonus/territories, negative bonus, simple objectives, etc.)
Conqueror = relative to expert what novice is to classic & classic "twins"

[edbeard]

I just don't think that complex and extreme are going to be meaningfully different for a new player (remember that's what this is all about). I think they're going to be basically equivalent in terms of how they'll be viewed by an average new player (or could be viewed as in reverse based on perspective) there's definitely a range in both my moderate and complex groups. But, I think they'll generally fit into a meaningfully different category. you'll look at the maps and say "yea these ones all fit together and I wouldn't really group them with that other group". With the four groups, I always thought "these two complex and extreme groups are basically the same"



I do think AOR Might and Waterloo belong in the same category because they both stray quite far from a normal risk game. Waterloo has many rules and much going on. AOR just has a completely different strategy and setup. I don't think anyone can really say one is more complex than the other but we all agree they're both more complex than maps like Great Lakes or King of the Mountains. That's why I think three groups is the best. We all agree certain maps are simple and certain ones are complex. Then there's the middle ground. Different starting styles, bonus types, all one-way borders etc...Which is really more complex than the other? That's very debatable and that's why we just skip that because we'll never agree.




regarding another thing you said ...
right now xml/gameplay quirks is how I've said it but we can come up with a better way to make it meaningful to a lay person

[ZeakCytho]

Why don't we do a poll on whether people prefer 3 or 4 groupings? Since we won't come up with a solution if we continue to debate back and forth here, since I don't think anyone will change their mind. Seeing the results of a poll could help decide the final organization.

regarding another thing you said ...
right now xml/gameplay quirks is how I've said it but we can come up with a better way to make it meaningful to a lay person

How about calling them non-standard gameplay features?

[edbeard]

I really don't like that idea because no one has made a good argument as to why four groups is superior to three and because using a poll to decide something like this doesn't make any sense. anonymous/random majority rules decision making has no appeal.


Three groups = less decision making and debate. Unless four groups is shown to be superior in helping separate the maps for new members, my previous sentence shows why three groups is the way to go.

[wcaclimbing]

no one has made a good argument as to why four groups is superior to three

I argued for 4 groups and gave reasons for it. And Zeak did the same.
Were our arguments not good enough?

[edbeard]

no one has made a good argument as to why four groups is superior to three

I argued for 4 groups and gave reasons for it. And Zeak did the same.
Were our arguments not good enough?

see the post I made before this one

[Night Strike]

I'm thinking 4 would be better because it actually provides a bit more justification for just picking a category for those maps that are on the border. When trying to get from the bottom of the stairs to the top, having only 3 steps makes each one much farther apart than if there were 4 steps. It's much easier to see Feudal or AoR1 in the 3rd level of 4 than it would be to see them in the middle of 3 levels.

[wcaclimbing]

no one has made a good argument as to why four groups is superior to three

I argued for 4 groups and gave reasons for it. And Zeak did the same.
Were our arguments not good enough?

see the post I made before this one

I think we might be differing in our goals with these lists.
I think you are focusing more on benefiting the new players that have never seen this place before. And if this list was specifically for the new players, then your 3 categories would make sense.

I (and I think Zeak also) am seeing this more as a list to help everyone, not just new members. When focused on everyone, I think the 4 lists would be more valuable, because for the more skilled players around here, the distinction between Complex and Extreme might actually be important. Sure, to a new player, Complex and Extreme maps could seem equally baffling, but I'm thinking that for more experienced users that already understand how this place works, the Extreme section would help by dividing out the most complicated maps offered by this site.

So even the experienced members can benefit from the lists. Thats how I see this project.

[edbeard]

I'm thinking 4 would be better because it actually provides a bit more justification for just picking a category for those maps that are on the border. When trying to get from the bottom of the stairs to the top, having only 3 steps makes each one much farther apart than if there were 4 steps. It's much easier to see Feudal or AoR1 in the 3rd level of 4 than it would be to see them in the middle of 3 levels.

actually them being in the highest of 3 levels makes the most sense

think classic - siege! - AOR

or Brazil - Tamriel - Waterloo


I think the majority of people would agree that this list works

if you were to do four levels though...

classic - siege - AOR - Waterloo

I think you'd find plenty of people that switch AOR and Waterloo. Now, this isn't going to be the only example. I think you'll definitely be able to get the extreme and complex groups as definitely more complex than moderate but those complex and extreme groups are just going to be muddled with uncertainty




regarding wca's post, I don't think experienced players need help separating their maps. the original goal of this was to help new players. I don't see the benefit experienced players would get from this.

and, if people want to give their opinion let them do it with words instead of a click in a poll.

[edbeard]

Again, I don't see why someone that's played many or most of the maps needs to be told how complex these maps are.

basically

simple - very much like risk

moderate - like risk but possibly with a few different rules and gameplay quirks

complex - strays far from a standard risk game


how the heck can you do that with four groups and have it make sense without being arbitrary?

complex - strays far from a standard risk game

extreme - strays REALLY far from a standard risk game

[ZeakCytho]

Again, I don't see why someone that's played many or most of the maps needs to be told how complex these maps are.

basically

simple - very much like risk

moderate - like risk but possibly with a few different rules and gameplay quirks

complex - strays far from a standard risk game


how the heck can you do that with four groups and have it make sense without being arbitrary?

complex - strays far from a standard risk game

extreme - strays REALLY far from a standard risk game

I think you're drawing an arbitrary line here. You can see the distinction between "a few different rules" and "staying far" but not between "straying far" and "straying very far"? I don't know what else to say, then, if you are unable to even understand where we're coming from.

I don't see why having a poll would hurt things. At the very least, it will have no influence. At best, it will make it easier for us to decide which option (3 or 4 categories) the community thinks will be more beneficial to themselves. Nothing negative can come from doing it.

[edbeard]

the problem is your guys' distinction between far and very far is arbitrary

A. start on one territory and expand vs B. having a ton of rules and starting neutrals all over the place?

which goes further from standard gameplay?

I think any reasonable person will agree they both go stray further than a map like Scotland. Reasonable people will disagree about A and B.

[ZeakCytho]

the problem is your guys' distinction between far and very far is arbitrary

A. start on one territory and expand vs B. having a ton of rules and starting neutrals all over the place?

which goes further from standard gameplay?

I think any reasonable person will agree they both go stray further than a map like Scotland. Reasonable people will disagree about A and B.

I would make the case, and most other people who have posted in this thread seem to agree with me, that A is less complex than B. In A, the complexity occurs at the start - past that, gameplay follows classic rules. Though a player may be confused at the start, once he gets his bearings he should be okay. With B, a new player may constantly have to refer to the rules and it may take a long time (multiple games, even) to get his bearings/fully understand how the attack routes or bonuses work. Because of that, I think B is more complex than A, while both are more complex than a map like Scotland.

[edbeard]

the problem is your guys' distinction between far and very far is arbitrary

A. start on one territory and expand vs B. having a ton of rules and starting neutrals all over the place?

which goes further from standard gameplay?

I think any reasonable person will agree they both go stray further than a map like Scotland. Reasonable people will disagree about A and B.

I would make the case, and most other people who have posted in this thread seem to agree with me, that A is less complex than B. In A, the complexity occurs at the start - past that, gameplay follows classic rules. Though a player may be confused at the start, once he gets his bearings he should be okay. With B, a new player may constantly have to refer to the rules and it may take a long time (multiple games, even) to get his bearings/fully understand how the attack routes or bonuses work. Because of that, I think B is more complex than A, while both are more complex than a map like Scotland.

I disagree because a map like AOR, I only start with one territory which is totally different than how a classic game works. A map like Supermax might have strange bonuses and rules but I get bonuses via group like a classic game.

[yeti_c]

I'm with Edbeard on the 3 categories front...

We had a hard enough time arguing over the 4 categories last time - whereas 3 makes it sooooo much easier...

Also - "Conquest" gameplay should be in the highest of the 3 groups - You guys aren't looking at this like a new player might - you are all at ease with the foundry and where to find info about these maps - a new person would have nothing but the legend - and no idea that only 1 place is a start until they actually start the game.

C.

[chipv]

Having plugged in Coleman's latest list into the script I am now reading through the subsequent posts.

Can we reach some sort of consensus??

I agree with those who are looking at this from a new players point of view.
Experienced players can just try out new maps when they come out and make their own minds up, everyone's skill level is different,
so arguing over how complex a map ,from an experienced player's point of view, is subjective.

So to help a new player, please can we come up with an agreed list - can we not have an official foundry list - whose responsibility is it to provide this list? If you guys nominate one person to print a list and maintain it (that is important) then we can have a separate thread that gets updated - makes it easier for myself (and subsequently Lack) to go and implement.

Thanks

[MrBenn]

Here's a compromise...

Let's have 3 categories (as per Ed's idea, but with slightly different names):

• 1. Simple
  2. Moderate
  3. Challenging

Once these have been agreed, then the 'Challenging' maps could be grouped into:

• 3. Challenging
  4. More Challenging

[Ruben Cassar]

Just because Luxembourg has a neutral territory at the start it doesn't mean it's not simple. It's definitely not moderate.

Actually I think it's one of the most simple maps on CC.