foundry process revamp

[AndyDufresne]

I've been unavailable for a day or two, and I am just catching up. I hope to read through this thread more thoroughly, and respond to many of the comments.

I think some people will be happy, and encouraged.


--Andy

[Telvannia]

my slight addition:

maybe if ewe were to have more moderators, but with less power, for example andy would have the quenching power, and then there would be 4 or os moderators below him, and when they are chosen they should be chosen to be different, have one who likes maps with classic gameplay, one who likes interesting gameplays (im not saying classic is not interesting) one who likes something thing else in a map, and one who likes all styles of maps.
Then during the foundry process each moderator would watch maps they where particularly interested in, then each style of map would go though at about the same rate, and then there would be a separated part of the foundry for moderators to look at (might already be in existence i would not know), where they could post to bring a map that is nearly finished to the attention of andy to quench.
This way andy could spend more time finishing off maps, that are nearly finished anyway, and the lower moderators could keep the rest of the foundry moving.

(sorry if this makes little to no sense im feeling tired as i type, and im not really concentrating )

[Coleman]

That makes sense, but andy likes it when everyone agrees. In fact that's the only way he likes it. So he would never quench a map unless his servant moderators also thought it should be quenched and the community seemed to feel the same way.

As such, a new system with more moderators wouldn't be any different.

[DiM]

I've been unavailable for a day or two, and I am just catching up. I hope to read through this thread more thoroughly, and respond to many of the comments.

I think some people will be happy, and encouraged.


--Andy

i already feel encouraged and slightly happier by the fact you said some people will be happy and encouraged.

[Coleman]

I've been unavailable for a day or two, and I am just catching up. I hope to read through this thread more thoroughly, and respond to many of the comments.

I think some people will be happy, and encouraged.


--Andy

i already feel encouraged and slightly happier by the fact you said some people will be happy and encouraged.

Thus, the day is saved again by Andy and the power of his words. Soon the power of Andy's words will be put to the ultimate test as he backs up whatever this claim may mean.

[DiM]

I've been unavailable for a day or two, and I am just catching up. I hope to read through this thread more thoroughly, and respond to many of the comments.

I think some people will be happy, and encouraged.


--Andy

so? have you caught up with the reading? can you share some thoughts?

[DiM]

I've been unavailable for a day or two, and I am just catching up. I hope to read through this thread more thoroughly, and respond to many of the comments.

I think some people will be happy, and encouraged.


--Andy

so? have you caught up with the reading? can you share some thoughts?

still nothing?
it's been 2 days since you said you're catching up
i'm feeling less happy and less encouraged now

[d.gishman]

I guess it was all talk and no substance. Vague promises always lead to no progress.

[Coleman]

If his weeks are anything like mine he didn't have the time.

[DiM]

I've been unavailable for a day or two, and I am just catching up. I hope to read through this thread more thoroughly, and respond to many of the comments.

I think some people will be happy, and encouraged.


--Andy

so? have you caught up with the reading? can you share some thoughts?

still nothing?
it's been 2 days since you said you're catching up
i'm feeling less happy and less encouraged now

more than 3 days and still nothing.

on another note i have to notice when i started AoR i was clearly requested to do a small map before i am moved to the main foundry. it was a several pages long argument and in the end i supplied the small version and the map was moved.
since then i see berlin map was moved without a small image and a few minutes ago pudget sound was also moved without a small map.

if berlin and pudget were deemed worthy of map foundry despite having obvious flaws that perhaps should have been solved in the ideas, then why isn't qwert's ww2 europe moved to the main foundry also?

how is this possible? why do such things happen? why do some maps wait for weeks and the map makers put titles like "banana for andy" just to get the attention of the mods and they still get ignored while other maps are totally supported and allowed to skip steps to smooth out the process and make it faster?

why some maps are delayed on purpose?

[Qwert]

DiM Posted: 17 Sep 2007 20:03 Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DiM wrote:
DiM wrote:
AndyDufresne wrote:
I've been unavailable for a day or two, and I am just catching up. I hope to read through this thread more thoroughly, and respond to many of the comments.

I think some people will be happy, and encouraged.


--Andy


so? have you caught up with the reading? can you share some thoughts?


still nothing?
it's been 2 days since you said you're catching up
i'm feeling less happy and less encouraged now


more than 3 days and still nothing.

on another note i have to notice when i started AoR i was clearly requested to do a small map before i am moved to the main foundry. it was a several pages long argument and in the end i supplied the small version and the map was moved.
since then i see berlin map was moved without a small image and a few minutes ago pudget sound was also moved without a small map.

if berlin and pudget were deemed worthy of map foundry despite having obvious flaws that perhaps should have been solved in the ideas, then why isn't qwert's ww2 europe moved to the main foundry also?

how is this possible? why do such things happen? why do some maps wait for weeks and the map makers put titles like "banana for andy" just to get the attention of the mods and they still get ignored while other maps are totally supported and allowed to skip steps to smooth out the process and make it faster?

why some maps are delayed on purpose?

For me these not new news.If you start research all map foundry you will find so many non logical thing,like how some map be quenched very fast and some maps been prolonged half years.
If you look final forge you will see that some maps very fast get quench.and some must waith very long period,even if these map bee before in final forge.
Double standards?Maybe or maybe not.
Even now mine map IWO JIMA is in ignore stage from Andy,because he spoke every 6-10 days to say"i still think that borders is not same"and i reply,but he again waith 6-10 days to tell me that borders not look same,even people tell that not se any problem in borders.Why he doing these i realy dont know.
Like i say in iwo jima topic

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I must say that i been very when i see that border discusion in Rewamp of Indochina been very short-Keyogu say that border dont look good ,and WM say that they must be such,and discusion is over.He create difernt border style for these map.
But here Keyogu and Andy proffer very big resistance for these style of borders.
Why is that i realy dont know?

[Coleman]

My understanding is these other two maps that were moved can obviously have working small maps while your two maps are going to need more discussion to decide if they are in fact desirable by the community as big maps. Seeing as how a small map that fits in the guidelines doesn't seem to be possible without a major loss in quality for your maps.

Honestly, I'm not sure how much I think AoM is justifiable. I believe qwert's is justifiable once his western front map is quenched, but not before. How we deem what is justifiable to break the standards and what isn't is up in the air at the moment. That's what these discussions are for. I think we probably need some clear progress towards a set of rules to govern what should be allowed to break the standards and what should not.

This is something that Andy and Keyogi seem to be interested in having an all or nothing on. Meaning, either there are no standards or nobody is allowed to break them. I don't feel that either way will work, we need a happy medium. Hopefully before some of the talented artists get so fed up that they leave, which may have already happened in a few cases.

[hulmey]

well its pretty obvious from all the moaning thats going on that something aint right!!!

[oaktown]

well its pretty obvious from all the moaning thats going on that something aint right!!!

Agreed, I'm just not sure that the problem is with the site.

[DiM]

My understanding is these other two maps that were moved can obviously have working small maps while your two maps are going to need more discussion to decide if they are in fact desirable by the community as big maps. Seeing as how a small map that fits in the guidelines doesn't seem to be possible without a major loss in quality for your maps.

Honestly, I'm not sure how much I think AoM is justifiable. I believe qwert's is justifiable once his western front map is quenched, but not before. How we deem what is justifiable to break the standards and what isn't is up in the air at the moment. That's what these discussions are for. I think we probably need some clear progress towards a set of rules to govern what should be allowed to break the standards and what should not.

This is something that Andy and Keyogi seem to be interested in having an all or nothing on. Meaning, either there are no standards or nobody is allowed to break them. I don't feel that either way will work, we need a happy medium. Hopefully before some of the talented artists get so fed up that they leave, which may have already happened in a few cases.

first of all congrats on your new job.
second. it's AoR not AoM. it's Age of Realms.

now back to the double standards thing. while in the ideas forum i was clearly asked for a small version on AoR otherwise it won't be moved to the main foundry. the reason was that some places will have to be redesigned in order to accommodate the army numbers. at 130-150 terits the map was too big to fit in 630*600 and still have enough space for army numbers. so i reduced the terit count and made the small version and it got moved. now look at berlin map right at the central terits. can those accommodate army numbers in small version? no way. and yet nobody requested a small version and it got moved with no problem. i drew the attention onto this in the thread but oaktown said he will do this later.

so is it normal that 1 cartographer is advised to leave the foundry unless he does what keyogi says and another cartographer is allowed to do the map how he wants? no.

now i have nothing against oaktown or the berlin map and i think it deserves to be moved out of the foundry especially since the rules say you need either a small or a large version to be moved. they donn't say anything about both, but i'm disturbed by the double standards. in AoR there was so much interest to slow it down it got to entire pages of arguments. some of them were that there's not enough interest in the map to justify a move or that i don't have the total terit number clearly stated in the first post. that was fun. come on i know it's in the rules but how petty can you get in the attempt to hold a map?


hopefully with keyogi gone and you and cairnswk in this new position the double standards will no longer exist.


PS: and why wouldn't AoM be justifiable to break the size but ww2 europe would? AoM has a shitload of feedback and support, it brings a whole new gameplay to the table and it looks good.

the only reason size guidlines should be broken is epic maps. what can be more epic than a map like AoR that stretches on 3 episodes has a unique storyline with twists and turns and so on?

plus if you look in the thread i didn't ask for much. i wanted 700*700 for small and 850*850 for large. is this really that hard?

[cairnswk]

DiM...Coleman and everyone else...here's my two dollars worth.

Map Size.

I've watched everyone have an opinion on this, and yes there is some "market" determination for larger maps, while others are happy to have the status quo. I have even suggested a compromise of larger maps, with smaller versions to meet the small size guideines.

However, no matter how much you argue and debate at present, and I will confirm this again with Andy nand Lackattack - not the map makers, but the owners, the size restrictions are here to stay for the immediate future until the owners determine otherwise oand we can advise you accordingly.

End of story.

Preferntial Treatment of Maps

Although i don't consider i have been the target of preferntial treatment, I have had my own maps moved from New Ideas after three upgrades, no size restriction was placed on that movement, and I feel some injustice has been done in this repsect to certain parties and their maps.

Whatever the reasons for this were are in the past for me.....I will make it my intention to ensure that there is no preferential treatment for anyone, and that includes you DiM and myself as a mapmaker. Qwert...you're in on this one also. Please don't expect me to support/move your map at its current size if it does not come within the current guidelines.

I cannot undo what has been done re the size of World 2.1, it also is in the past.

I want to work with everyone to achieve their best for themselves and the site, but mapmaker have also to co-operate with 'the rules'. I had to do it in Pearl Harbor, when it was suggested that i could go over the size restrictions, I had to pull that map back within bounds, and goodness know it could have used the extra space.

I have even had my sig oversize and been clamped down on that one by a mod and given official warning.

Work with the Foundry and I'll do my best ( and I am sure Coleman will also) to ensure that everyone is treated fairly.

[DiM]

congrats to you too on the new title.

now on to the situation at hand. i've been waiting to also hear your opinion on this one. and i'm still waiting for andy to come with a more detailed situation. not only about the size or about the double standards but mostly about the testing facility.

DiM...Coleman and everyone else...here's my two dollars worth.

Map Size.

I've watched everyone have an opinion on this, and yes there is some "market" determination for larger maps, while others are happy to have the status quo. I have even suggested a compromise of larger maps, with smaller versions to meet the small size guideines.

However, no matter how much you argue and debate at present, and I will confirm this again with Andy nand Lackattack - not the map makers, but the owners, the size restrictions are here to stay for the immediate future until the owners determine otherwise oand we can advise you accordingly.

End of story.

let's not say end of story but rather "to be continued" i'd hate to think the current size restrictions will be the same forever. the site is designed for 800*600 resolution monitors. i haven't used that for the last 8 or 9 years. and i'd hate to still hear the same thing 8 or 9 years from now when we all have 100" monitors

Preferntial Treatment of Maps

Although i don't consider i have been the target of preferntial treatment, I have had my own maps moved from New Ideas after three upgrades, no size restriction was placed on that movement, and I feel some injustice has been done in this repsect to certain parties and their maps.

nobody said you were targeted for special treatment. in fact you were treated as normal.

Whatever the reasons for this were are in the past for me.....I will make it my intention to ensure that there is no preferential treatment for anyone, and that includes you DiM and myself as a mapmaker. Qwert...you're in on this one also. Please don't expect me to support/move your map at its current size if it does not come within the current guidelines.

as i said above. when i say double standards i don't necessarily mean that a certain map maker is being helped to bend the rules. no. most are treated as normal. no unfair advantages offered to them. but what i'm talking about is that some map makers are being asked stupid things that have no support in the rules with the sole purpose of delaying their map. just out of curiosity i'd like to know why AoR was the only map to be requested a small map to be moved out of the ideas forum.

I cannot undo what has been done re the size of World 2.1, it also is in the past.

yes it is in the past but it has created a precedent. and this has to be dealt with in 2 ways. either allow other map to have the same size as world 2.1 or resize world 2.1. unfortunately the worst choice has been made.

I want to work with everyone to achieve their best for themselves and the site, but mapmaker have also to co-operate with 'the rules'. I had to do it in Pearl Harbor, when it was suggested that i could go over the size restrictions, I had to pull that map back within bounds, and goodness know it could have used the extra space.

yes you could have used the extra space but aside from a little more cramping nothing bad resulted from the resize. for AoR i had to cut ~30 terits to be able to do the resize. that's bad because it affects the whole gameplay idea. and just because i wanted 850*850 instead of 840*800. all that while world 2.1 is 900*784

I have even had my sig oversize and been clamped down on that one by a mod and given official warning.

well i received a warning and got my post deleted for bumping a thread. and it wasn't one of those "BUMP" posts. i merely stated the map needs new xml features in order to continue. i've been told it was a direct order from "above". has lack specifically asked my post to be removed? don't think so. and if he did then how come other bumps haven't been removed or even more serious how come mods can come and say "bump" look at ak in the alaska thread. i'm sure he didn't receive a warning.

i've also been given a warning for posting offtopic. come on there are thousands of offtopic posts in the foundry including some from the mods. did they receive a warning?

and the greatest warning i received was for posting a tutorial in a map thread. i was showing telvannia how to make a mountain and the next thing i saw was another warning. come on. to get a warning for trying to help? i would give warnings to people that come and say "this map is stupid" or "i don't like it" people that post negative things with no constructive thought in mind. and yet those are left alone while i'm given a warning for going being overzealous and actually posting a tutorial and some images to help.

btw. i have 3 warnings shouldn't that turn into a temporary ban or something?

Work with the Foundry and I'll do my best ( and I am sure Coleman will also) to ensure that everyone is treated fairly.

i will work with the foundry but the foundry has got to work with me.
but so far i've seen only warnings, stupid requests, insults and all sorts of delaying schemes.

[cairnswk]

congrats to you too on the new title.

Thanks DiM

now on to the situation at hand. i've been waiting to also hear your opinion on this one. and i'm still waiting for andy to come with a more detailed situation. not only about the size or about the double standards but mostly about the testing facility.

DiM i can't speak for Andy about his posts. I do know that lack has advised from the pearl Harbor thread:

I know there are demands for map playtesting, but I don't want to have games in the live database for non-existant maps and I don't want to let everyone into the test site or manage test privileges.

I think the solution is a better mapmker XML checker tool. Using code that yeti_c has provided me I can improve the checker so that it would have caught all the bugs in the latest batch of new maps. This will be a priority for next week.

DiM...Coleman and everyone else...here's my two dollars worth.

Map Size.

I've watched everyone have an opinion on this, and yes there is some "market" determination for larger maps, while others are happy to have the status quo. I have even suggested a compromise of larger maps, with smaller versions to meet the small size guideines.

However, no matter how much you argue and debate at present, and I will confirm this again with Andy nand Lackattack - not the map makers, but the owners, the size restrictions are here to stay for the immediate future until the owners determine otherwise oand we can advise you accordingly.

End of story.

let's not say end of story but rather "to be continued" i'd hate to think the current size restrictions will be the same forever. the site is designed for 800*600 resolution monitors. i haven't used that for the last 8 or 9 years. and i'd hate to still hear the same thing 8 or 9 years from now when we all have 100" monitors

yes i'm sure it will be continued...at at later stage. for now, i meant that let us cease this endless use of space when you know very well that lack and Andy are not ready to move on this one YET.

Preferntial Treatment of Maps

Although i don't consider i have been the target of preferntial treatment, I have had my own maps moved from New Ideas after three upgrades, no size restriction was placed on that movement, and I feel some injustice has been done in this repsect to certain parties and their maps.

nobody said you were targeted for special treatment. in fact you were treated as normal.

that's good to know and i wasn't sugggesting that i was receiving special treatment.

Whatever the reasons for this were are in the past for me.....I will make it my intention to ensure that there is no preferential treatment for anyone, and that includes you DiM and myself as a mapmaker. Qwert...you're in on this one also. Please don't expect me to support/move your map at its current size if it does not come within the current guidelines.

as i said above. when i say double standards i don't necessarily mean that a certain map maker is being helped to bend the rules. no. most are treated as normal. no unfair advantages offered to them. but what i'm talking about is that some map makers are being asked stupid things that have no support in the rules with the sole purpose of delaying their map. just out of curiosity i'd like to know why AoR was the only map to be requested a small map to be moved out of the ideas forum.

i can't answer your question, you'll have to ask the person who made that decision at that time about delaying your map if that is what was in intended

yes i understand this, but i still think it is preferential treatment when it is goven to one person and not the other.

I cannot undo what has been done re the size of World 2.1, it also is in the past.

yes it is in the past but it has created a precedent. and this has to be dealt with in 2 ways. either allow other map to have the same size as world 2.1 or resize world 2.1. unfortunately the worst choice has been made.

OK...consultation will occur again on this matter from my side, but don't expect a decision in your favour.

I want to work with everyone to achieve their best for themselves and the site, but mapmaker have also to co-operate with 'the rules'. I had to do it in Pearl Harbor, when it was suggested that i could go over the size restrictions, I had to pull that map back within bounds, and goodness know it could have used the extra space.

yes you could have used the extra space but aside from a little more cramping nothing bad resulted from the resize. for AoR i had to cut ~30 terits to be able to do the resize. that's bad because it affects the whole gameplay idea. and just because i wanted 850*850 instead of 840*800. all that while world 2.1 is 900*784

I have even had my sig oversize and been clamped down on that one by a mod and given official warning.

well i received a warning and got my post deleted for bumping a thread. and it wasn't one of those "BUMP" posts. i merely stated the map needs new xml features in order to continue. i've been told it was a direct order from "above". has lack specifically asked my post to be removed? don't think so. and if he did then how come other bumps haven't been removed or even more serious how come mods can come and say "bump" look at ak in the alaska thread. i'm sure he didn't receive a warning.

i've also been given a warning for posting offtopic. come on there are thousands of offtopic posts in the foundry including some from the mods. did they receive a warning?

and the greatest warning i received was for posting a tutorial in a map thread. i was showing telvannia how to make a mountain and the next thing i saw was another warning. come on. to get a warning for trying to help? i would give warnings to people that come and say "this map is stupid" or "i don't like it" people that post negative things with no constructive thought in mind. and yet those are left alone while i'm given a warning for going being overzealous and actually posting a tutorial and some images to help.

btw. i have 3 warnings shouldn't that turn into a temporary ban or something?

Work with the Foundry and I'll do my best ( and I am sure Coleman will also) to ensure that everyone is treated fairly.

i will work with the foundry but the foundry has got to work with me.
but so far i've seen only warnings, stupid requests, insults and all sorts of delaying schemes.

Well hopefully, we can stop all that!

Now...it's midnight...i had hoped not to get into all this on this first night, but obviously that wasn't to be since i decided to speak up.

All i can ask is give your new mods a fair go and time to settle in, please.

[DiM]

All i can ask is give your new mods a fair go and time to settle in, please.

sure mate. you've already done more than it has been done before by simply coming in this thread and speaking about the issues in a calm and polite manner.

[wcaclimbing]

only problem i see with the foundry process is teh map ideas subforum.

So many maps take such a beating that few of them can excape the Ideas forum.

Too many people just give flat out "good map, bad map" style comments that leave the creator without any way to improve.


People need to at least include WHY the map is bad or how to improve it. i have seen many maps that have had much potential get destroyed by critics.

[DiM]

only problem i see with the foundry process is teh map ideas subforum.

So many maps take such a beating that few of them can excape the Ideas forum.

Too many people just give flat out "good map, bad map" style comments that leave the creator without any way to improve.


People need to at least include WHY the map is bad or how to improve it. i have seen many maps that have had much potential get destroyed by critics.

very true but unfortunately this is not only in the ideas forum. i've seen people commenting bad things with no explanation when the map was in final forge. but this is beyond the powers of the mods. they can't do anything since everybody has a right to an opinion. i have learned to ignore those that come and post things like "it's crap and i hate it". unless they can provide some reasoning for their comments i simply ignore them.

[AndyDufresne]

Let me first off say that I am sorry that I have been unable to read and respond to this topic until now. Due to Keyogi's job's demands, he was unable to wait until I had found replacement C.A.'s. I of course had people in mind, I just had to scramble a little quicker than I wished to. I spent most of the this prior week, up until the announcement, trying to coordinate the new positions. I also had a few real life things to deal with, so I am sorry for my absence. But now that we've got the C.A.'s starting work, things should be getting back to normal.

I'm going to try to respond to most everything I can in this thread, though I'm not sure how long all that will take, so bare with me!

Alright? Lets get going!

=========================================

lately i have become more and more annoyed with how the foundry process runs, how the mods make decisions, how some map makers are treated and so on. and i'm not the only one that shares this opinion.

some maps are being slowed down because the mods simply don't show up in those threads or because they come and make requests about things that have already been taken care a long time ago.

other maps are being quenched without profer discussions.

the size issue has been so discussed there's no point in explaining it again.

suggestions for improving the process are either refused without further comments or are simply ignored.

Lack, myself, the other moderators, and the new C.A.'s...we aren't trying to ignore and suggestions. Discussion is healthy, and a lot of discussions between the higher ups have come directly from the Foundry. I'd like to continue the discussions, as I think we can improve the Foundry.

some map makers are treated as if they are being done a favour if they are allowed to create a map.

maps are released without proper testing despite the fact that the foudry requested a testing possibility quite a long time ago.

andy and keyogi spend their time slowing down the process by posting useless requests in various map threads instead of checking up the maps proposed for quenching and making sure everything is perfect before they are put up for live play.

and the problems are even more but i think these will do for now.

As some of you may know, Lack and Yeti_C are working with the XML checker (KevinC's), and they plan to restructure the code to allow it to capture most all the bugs that we've dealt with recently. For now, this all the beta testing lack wants done. I think I remember cairnswk posting an explanation by lack on page 7 of this thread.

what i want here is to stop all the discussions that take place around the foundry and concentrate it all in one place. perhaps we can talk like adults and try to reach a solution. perhaps the mods should lose the "i rule this domain and i piss on your head" attitude and the stubborn map makers should get rid of their "i know what's best" attitude and maybe something good will come out of this.

one simple request let's try to keep a calm discussion and reasonable thinking.


PS: and don't move this thread to general discussion or suggestions and stuff because i believe this is a mater best discussed within the foundry limits.

cheers.

I think finally concentrating all the discussion in this post is the way to go!

I am one who is unhappy with the current foundry process as well.

I would like to see a system implemented where there is an idea section (already exists). Then a layout section where the basics of the map are laid out and critiqued. This part would focus on game play only because the biggest problem is that people become concerned with graphics far too early. After a map gets approval from the foundry under game play it goes to a testing area where a limited number of people can play the map and see how things work on it. If there are obvious problems it gets rejected back to game play, if not it moves onto final forge which would solely be concerned with graphics. Once the graphics of the map are approved it would go to a quenching stage.

Unfortunately as posted I think later in this thread, lack doesn't want and have the means to make a play testing area. That is maybe something for the future, but fortunately the next XML checker should catch much of the errors...but that won't stop bad game play. But I think for the most part the Foundry does well on figuring out a lot of game play things before a map goes up for live play.

One small thing I would recommend is some better advertising for the foundry itself. A vanishingly small percentage of active players actually visit the foundry, a percentage that's dwarfed by the numbers of complaints and suggestions that come in when a map launches. I suppose this is to be expected, given the length of some threads and the hostile reactions casual foundry readers face when they make a suggestion that had been shouted down 20 pages before. But if a means were to be found (perhaps with a small banner on the my games page) to encourage people to visit the foundry and "see what's in development", it might not be a bad idea. However, trolls should be dealt with harshly, as the foundry (and the maps that it vomits forth) is one of the things that makes CC great.

Right now a few members are taking the initiative to get the Foundry 'out' to more people. I also do know that sometime in the future Conquer Club will probably have a Newsletter, and almost definitely in that will the Foundry have a space to talk about some of the latest maps out, and some of the maps in development, etc. This is being worked!

just as i specified in the portugal thread WM the fact is your indochina revamp went smoothly (as it should have been) but other maps are slowed down for no specific reason. actually the reasons are well known just unspoken.
anyway i pointed in that thread a lot of tiny bits and suggestions that could have been implemented in your map. like centering the army numbers relative to the territory names, or making the names not touch the borders. reasonable things that are asked around the foundry and yet somehow they weren't in your indochina revamp. if keyogi wanted to slow you down he could have done it easily just like he does on other threads. go back to portugal and read the week by week slowdown process i made for your map.

I don't believe Keyogi or I ever intentionally slowed down or sped up a map. I know some slow down occurs, because at certain times my schedule gets a little hectic and I have less time than I'd like. But now that we've got two C.A.'s, (both mind in different parts of the world=more coverage for the Foundry overall. ) things should begin to speed up. I'm sure we'll also be discussing ways to improve and REVAMP the Foundry. And threads like this are good at getting the discussion going.

Can I add to GreecePwns list that I'd like to see an executive committee of 3 with the authority to kill any map at any time. Too often crap gets thrown out, and no one says the awful truth that the thing needs to be scrapped and started from scratch. An axe-wielding executive committee, (presumably headed by Andy and/or Keyogi) could go a long way to keeping the number of maps to a reasonable number, and allow the foundry to focus it's attention on the maps which have the most potential.

NO WAY. this would probably cause even more problems. "never give too much power to a single person or you'll live just long enough to regret it"
i don't know if this is a famous quote but it sure sounds like one and it perfectly applies here.

When I first started as Foundry Foreman, I had the idea of a 'Cartography Committee', which is somewhat similar to what you suggested, though they'd also be in charge of the rest of the Foundry proceedings also. It got shot down as fast as I could type it up and hit submit. I think the best way to weed out the 'weak maps', is to simply provide honest feedback. If you think a map is bad, or isn't going to work, then say so...but explain why also.

...i've seen maps in FF that had no feedback and no modifications were done and yet andy and keyogi came and asked for links 3-4 times despite the fact the SAME links could have been found several pages behind. one other thing i noticed is when a map maker posts the images and then the xml link. and after that andy comes and asks for the links to the images. is it so hard to right click on an image and copy paste the link from there?

I never want to assume that the old links are the correct links. And sometimes it's the case where old links get broken, and new links are needed. As for it being so hard to right click and get the link...it's a simple request, to be provided with the Text links. It also lets people know that we are much closer to the end. It's like a pre-quench warning system...similar to that tsunami system, you know?

unfortunatelly all my ideas are impossible at this point. either because of the size restrictions or because of the xml restrictions. if you look in the xml thread i have some xml modifications i suggested a few months ago. to this date they haven't even been looked at to say if they are possible or if they are rejected or accepted. when that thread was made i had so many hopes i was instantly flooded with ideas of new gameplay concepts only to realize i was a fool to believe all that.

As lack, myself, and Keyogi has mentioned number of times, more XML additions will be done. Currently lack is focusing more on site wide updates, but all suggestions are noted by lack. Some may be easy to do, some may be difficult. Just because we are not pumping out a new XML concept every month, doesn't mean more aren't coming.

Making scapegoats for problems doesn't help anything. Like Oaktown said the real 'problem' is people not giving feedback. With the amount of maps being made and the amount of people around to actually give feedback or moderate, I'd say the process is doing fairly well.

Of course, things like beta testing would be a huge help, but honestly members can do a lot too. When giving feedback treat yourself as if you are a moderator. Think of the standards that Andy and Keyogi have. Use the patience they show. Be supportive when necessary. When telling someone something doesn't work, explain why very clearly and give some possible solutions.

I think people need to stop taking things personally a bit. It's not a perfect system. Some people are going to get faster feedback than others. When a request comes in late in the stage of the game, don't freak out about it. Just keep a cool head and give an effort to implement the change and/or explain why it won't work.

Realize that it's not a democracy, but that in cases where you feel one or two people are holding you back with a silly request. Put up a poll that neutrally explains the two sides. If there's an extreme vote either way then you should know what to do. If it's a very close vote then maybe something else entirely should be done, or since you are the cartographer just keep the option that YOU prefer. I don't see anything wrong with that in that type of situation

Edbeard makes some excellent comments here. One thing the Foundry can improve upon, is more and more directed feedback. If you don't think something is working, or don't like something, go ahead and speak up and say why you don't, or why it doesn't work. With more discussion and debate, the better the process is. I don't have too much else to say here, as Edbeard covers it most expertly.

yes perhaps some maps need a bit more work. but as you already stated it's really frustrating to see that message where it's stated that in 2 days the map will be quenched if no requests are made and 2 months after the same people that said it's nearly done come in and make requests.

The 'two days' was taken out a while ago, DiM. The original reason it was in there, was because everyone wanted more clarity in what Final Forge was, back in the day.

well i received a warning and got my post deleted for bumping a thread. and it wasn't one of those "BUMP" posts. i merely stated the map needs new xml features in order to continue. i've been told it was a direct order from "above". has lack specifically asked my post to be removed? don't think so. and if he did then how come other bumps haven't been removed or even more serious how come mods can come and say "bump" look at ak in the alaska thread. i'm sure he didn't receive a warning

I like how you assume I wouldn't warn AK! I did give him a warning, and a slap on the hand. I don't like bumps in the Foundry, unless the bumps come along with suggestions, advice, or critiques.

===========================

Hm, well I'm glad I finally had the time to catch up. Hopefully now I'll be able to respond quicker. And now that we have Coleman and Cairnswk onboard, I can get back to work. (Actually, I just Quenched a map. ).

I feel like I should comment more, or clarify, so if anyone wants me to speak a little more on something, post it here and I can elaborate more!


--Andy

[Wisse]

andy i have 2 questions for you,
1) are there gonna be more foundry mods in the future (like cairns and coleman?) cause i think they are doing a great job and if more good mods will be there i think it would only get better
2) the beta version of the new xml doesn't work

[yeti_c]

2) the beta version of the new xml doesn't work

I believe the phrase was "Working" on the new XML tool...

C.

[AndyDufresne]

andy i have 2 questions for you,
1) are there gonna be more foundry mods in the future (like cairns and coleman?) cause i think they are doing a great job and if more good mods will be there i think it would only get better
2) the beta version of the new xml doesn't work

Yeti_c answered your second question.


As for the first question, we'll have to see. But one must always remember, more isn't always better. It'd be much harder to communicate with a larger number of people, spaced throughout the world, with varying schedules and time. Too many more, and it might actually hamper everything.


--Andy