Gameplay vs Graphics

[DiM]

we all know great graphics make you play a map over and over again but ultimately if the map has poor gameplay then it won't be played more than a few times.
i'm concerned that most of the foundry is currently concerned with graphics rather than gameplay. most of the comments are about graphic stuff and i think less than 10% are gameplay related. this sucks because the burden of balancing the gameplay comes on the shoulders of the mapmaker and when it comes to a classic style map that may be rather easy but for more complex maps the map maker can make mistakes, some of them even huge ones because let's face it, if you have a complex map it's easy to miss even a pretty obvious flaw cause you're the only one analysing the map.

that being said i'd like to see something being done about this. perhaps a change in how the foundry works.
normally when an idea and a draft are posted people should not comment on the graphics. they should be just the bare necessity for people to understand the map. all comments should be focused on making the map playable and ONLY after that graphics should start.

for example my RPG map. i have received just 1 comment about gameplay. all others have been about graphics. it's a draft for christ's sake who cares if a certain shadow should be moved 3px to the left or if a line is 5px too long. i've received graphic related comments that were so nitpicky i would have only expected them to come in final forge.
the graphics on most maps that are sticky in the ideas are roughly 90% of what they will be when the map is quenched. that's not normal. i want to see butt ugly maps with perfect gameplay coming out of the ideas forum. the main foundry is the place to do graphics because it's totally counter productive to make 90% of the graphics and then find some gameplay flaws that will force you to change everything.

another example is the famine map. people are commenting on the graphics but the map is UNPLAYABLE. yes it has major gameplay flaws that have been ignored because everybody concentrated on gfx. now bryguy will have to do rather big graphic changes to correct the gameplay. it's a waste of everybody's time.

so, i don't know, perhaps a map should also require some sort of a intermediary gameplay badge before it leaves the ideas forum.
perhaps having a DRAFT GFX and a DRAFT GP badge would kinda help avoid poor gameplay maps from coming into the foundry.

but the main problem lays within the feedback givers, less and less people comment on gameplay. yes graphics are easier to comment on but gameplay should always be the main concern.

[InkL0sed]

I completely agree. I myself am guilty of several of the things you've mentioned. We do seem to get carried away with the graphics.

[asl80]

oh but they such pretty little maps!
and yes.

[Kaplowitz]

My problem is that i dont know anything about gameplay...graphics are easier.

[MrBenn]

It's a hard balance to strike. There may be some merit in the 'Draft Gameplay' idea... suggestions of ways to improve the content of the foundry are always welcome... I'll watch this discussion with interest

[oaktown]

We implemented the Gameplay and Graphics stamps to address this issue, and it should be noted that gimil does not hand out graphics stamps until I have already stamped a map for gameplay; make it work first, make it pretty second. But as you noted, DIM, this system has not changed the way people comment. Adding a second round of stamping to Drafts would probably not change the way people comment either... it would just make more work for the C.A.s.

I'd like to point out that in order for a map to be stamped for Drafts, it must already meet the following gameplay criteria:

• Have a playable image (either large or small map); this should include territory names, a working legend, speculative bonuses, proposed impassable barriers, color, and tentative border divisions. It doesn't have to be perfect, but if the map were quenched today people should be able to play on it.
• Have honest and interested discussion involving members of the Foundry community. Not just you and three friends.
• The first post should include any information relevant to how this map will play, including (but not limited to) proposed starting neutral locations and values, victory conditions, unique play features, etc. Do not include every old version of the map in the first post - some of us don't have large displays and fast downloads. If you want us to have access to old versions, links will suffice.

So, a map doesn't have to be perfect when it comes out of the Drafting Room, but there has to be at least some thought put into how the map will play. We'd like to see the bulk of the work on a map happening in the Main Foundry, not stashed away in a sub-forum.

There is, as DIM has pointed out, at least one example of a map on which production has stalled because nobody is talking about gameplay. But some of that burden has to be born by the mapmaker; a mapmaker runs his/her map thread and needs to be able to push the discussion in the right direction if they want to get the map forged. If a mapmaker ignores gameplay and spends 11 months trying to get the mountains looking just right, that is his decision.

[Kaplowitz]

There is, as DIM has pointed out, at least one example of a map on which production has stalled because nobody is talking about gameplay. But some of that burden has to be born by the mapmaker; a mapmaker runs his/her map thread and needs to be able to push the discussion in the right direction if they want to get the map forged. If a mapmaker ignores gameplay and spends 11 months trying to get the mountains looking just right, that is his decision.

[DiM]

But some of that burden has to be born by the mapmaker; a mapmaker runs his/her map thread and needs to be able to push the discussion in the right direction if they want to get the map forged.

problem is a map maker isn't always capable of ironing out every little bit of detail in the gameplay.

for example i'm pretty good at analyzing a map and trying to get the best possible gameplay out of it. but once you spend hours upon hours looking at the map it's harder and harder to find the errors and correct them. sometimes a fresh pair of eyes is needed to point out things you have missed. the problem is that that fresh pair of eyes is nowhere to be found in the foundry.

especially with maps getting more and more complex it's harder and harder for the map maker to iron out all the gameplay problems.

some of my maps had issues that were eventually solved but only after they were quenched and people played them.
other maps had problems also.
das schloss was even taken out until the gameplay is solved. this is not good.
i'd rather see people post about bonuses or neutrals than to see them post about shadows and borders.

[foregone]

Not to rock the boat, but mapmakers tend to be less kind to those commenting when they do so about gameplay. Many of these comments are dismissed or simply ignored. This doesn't exactly encourage people to make any comments in that regard at all.

[edbeard]

you probably get that impression because most gameplay comments that are given are of the "you should change the map to be like this" instead of the "this part of the way you have it doesn't work". I'm making a map in the way I want it. While the way you might like it to be could work or could be better, having the courtesy to comment on what I have is something people generally don't do.


I don't think what people will comment about will ever change. My ODW map hardly got any gameplay comments at all. Sure it's complicated but people are just too lazy to think for a few minutes about it.

What I'm hoping to do with my ''Land and Water' map is to get the gameplay stamp and then find someone to do the graphics on an all but completed map. I know this won't be easy because everyone will comment on the graphics telling me that "I should move this label to the left" or that my land-to-water connections are ugly. It shouldn't be hard because it's a classic style map but trust me when I say that it will be.

[InkL0sed]

Well, I personally am going to try to comment on mostly game play from now on. We'll see how that turns out.

[reggie_mac]

I somehow don't think that everyone is going to be able to spot issues with game play from a casual glance as well as you would if you had played the map a couple of times, i must say that I've been pretty lucky myself with most comments coming about the game play rather than the graphics, which has been most helpful.

Probably the biggest thing that i did to help get the game play off the ground was to actually print the map out and play on it. It is like bit of a mission, adn your map may not look the best blown up to A3 (I did my last redraw at 300dpi so i can do this well now), but sitting around your map with 3 or 4 friends and actually playing on it, and then having a chat about it with them aftwerwards will help more than re-lying on the Foundry alone.

[DiM]

Probably the biggest thing that i did to help get the game play off the ground was to actually print the map out and play on it. It is like bit of a mission, adn your map may not look the best blown up to A3 (I did my last redraw at 300dpi so i can do this well now), but sitting around your map with 3 or 4 friends and actually playing on it, and then having a chat about it with them aftwerwards will help more than re-lying on the Foundry alone.

haha. that's exactly what i did with some maps. AoM is now played more than classic when me and my friends meet )
but some people don't have risk fan friends so they have nobody to help them test while those that do have such friends could probably never play too many games.
and the most frustrating scenario is my case when i have friends passionate about risk but i just don't have the time to play anymore because of the many other things that fill my life

anyway, this method of testing your map is also very problematic because when i took a break from the foundry there was a certain fellow that kept saying he tests his map with his friends and it plays great but the map had major flaws. and he refused to correct them because he insisted his test plays were flawless.


PS: some maps are so damn complex that you have to play lots and lots of games (min 50) until you test all possible scenarios and outcomes. and if you have a wife a kid and a job it's nearly impossible to play 50 games.

[NightWolf]

I know exactly where you are in this problem. I almost did not post my idea of a Florida map because I was afraid everyone would jump on the graphics and dump the whole idea because my drawing abilities are poor. I am working on the graphics to appeal now but really, people need to comment on their interest in your map concept and gameplay first. I have played on maps before I deem "ugly" because they have good layouts and gameplay, and the maps sheer ugliness has no effect on me.

[BaldAdonis]

I'd like to say you have the resources around to do this (potentially every player who posts advice in the strategies forum/offers to help new players), but none of them are drawn to the foundry. This might be because of the overabundance of graphics posts, so that when players do come take a look, they decide the mapmaker is not concerned with the gameplay flaws, and so they leave. (Or, as I experienced, the player posts some, then searches through many pages of graphics comments to find a reply, then repeats until the map leaves the drafting room).

Maybe a bit of advertising is in order? Something to the effect of: "Come to the foundry! We're actually interested in what you think about the gameplay!" Don't know how well that will go over with the thread-movers though.