Conquer Club

It's just a mock up Gimil - the layout is what you're looking at not the actual list here!!

C.

yeti_c wrote:It's just a mock up Gimil - the layout is what you're looking at not the actual list here!!

C.

i know guys lol

I thought you were meant to be on holiday?!

C.

yeti_c wrote:I thought you were meant to be on holiday?!

C.

Leaving in an hour

sorry to but in on the conversation - but just wanted a question left begging elswhere answered (or reffered) - any chance in this new scheming on game finder pages etc. that there would be a chance of a personalised setting (i.e. tab), where you can arrange the list of maps yourself?

asl80 wrote:sorry to but in on the conversation - but just wanted a question left begging elswhere answered (or reffered) - any chance in this new scheming on game finder pages etc. that there would be a chance of a personalised setting (i.e. tab), where you can arrange the list of maps yourself?

seems plausable, dont think this has been suggested before.

shall i do an official suggestion - or leave it in the cartos's trusty hands you reakon?

asl80 wrote:shall i do an official suggestion - or leave it in the cartos's trusty hands you reakon?

Well - kindof both - because the suggestion applies to this modification - I'd leave it here - but if the modification happens without the "personalied pick list" then raise it in Suggs & Bugs!!

C.

Make sure he spells category right on the next draft .

Well, the way we are setting up this UI, it should be really easy to add more categories and sort methods later.

Next on my list to tackle is Theme categories... Which I know there will be fits about, but oh well, lets not start them here.

I also want to add a territory count sort method, least to most, so that should be easy enough since the only thing to debate there is if anyone would use it, in my opinion anyway.

The way this is probably going to be implemented though is that all the xml files will need to be changed with a 'complexity' tag in the header, and then a theme tag if we get through that, and whatever else we manage to come up with beyond those.

Coleman wrote:Oh, WidowMakers provided these:

gah... we are moving backwards here.

Just wanted everyone to know these are getting used today to do something.

Don't want to get anyone's hopes up, but just letting you know that they are getting used.

mibi wrote:we are moving backwards here.

this is why I stopped posting in all these threads (before they became dead I mean). I feel like many people had no common sense.

I think he was referring to something else, but you should post if you disagree with what is happening.

The new maps are not on the list yet. Here is my opinion on them:

Dust Bowl - Moderate

Waterloo - Extreme

Dungeon of Draknor - Halls of Testing - Moderate

Dust Bowl obviously isn't simple because it has the auto-deployed bonus of -1, but I wouldn't say it is complex because the directions are very clear and I think it would be hard to get confused.

Waterloo has many bonuses, farms, villages, artillery, calvary, and all the other things, which makes it extreme.

Dungeon of Draknor - Halls of Testing has only one-way borders. Nothing is really too hard to understand about the map, so I would say it is moderate.

--lanyards

I don't agree that the Civil War map is "complex"... maybe moderate.

The only thing that is different from Classic ( a simple map) is that Maryland can attack the ships and the Nuetrals don't get a bonus.

agree with lanyards. In fact in the new system I'm going to just put new maps up how I think they are and then see what other people think after, or even better we get a chance to discuss it in the actual topics.

Hopefully we can be okay with that.

New system might not be tell April though.

Is there no way to instate a user rating system in terms of difficuty?

An option that comes up after the map is finished in the same fashion the feedback options come up?

I have just trolled through all the pages on this topic, and find while i have only commented four times about the ratings, it is time to throw a spanner in. I acknowledge the hard work that has gone into this these ratings and the comments and thought made by everyone.

But I ask the forum to think about this question?
Do we want to use this Degree of Complexity list as a marketing tool for the business of the site, or discouragement potential players that might be turned away to other sites and other games.

I must say....I am also indeed distrurbed that towards the possible end of this discussion players have classed the majority of my maps as being "extreme". This is not good encouragement for me going forward to make other maps that play outside of the classic layout, and encourage learning and development on this site.

Another PoV is that i wouldn't class any of these maps as begin extreme unless fog of War is turned on.

I have just sent Coleman a PM challenging the ratings on some of my maps, and find that the current ratings would disuade people from playing these maps, and I don't think they are justified whatever methods you have used to determine the ratings.

Here is what i sent Coleman.

Bamboo Jack.
I fail to see what is extreme about that map.
It is simply a classic layout with classic attack methods wiht large number of terts. It should be no more than complex.

Battle for Australia.
This is fine as simple, although i would have placed that as moderate given the continent of Japan being spread across the map.

Cairns Coral Coast.
Fine as simple.

Madness.
Fine as moderate.

Pearl Harbor.
Fine as extreme, because of the planes and bombardments.

Rail USA.
Should be no more than complex. This is simply classic play in linear classic layout, with a couple of bottlenecks.

Valley of the Kings.
No more than complex. This style of attack was based on Wm's King of the Mountains and those helipcopters, with a progressive bonus system based on icons.

Waterloo.
Fine as extreme because of the bombardments and cavalry play and layout.

And for future upcoming maps, my recommendations....

Chicago.
Moderate. It is classic layout with a few moderate to complex methods of gaining bonuses.

Gazala.
Complex. A few bombardments with neutral advancements, still in classic layout using lines.

Rail Europe.
Complex. Slightly more intense than Rail USA using the linear classic layout.

Rail Australia.
Complex. Same as above.

Galapagos
Moderate. Classic layout with a few bonuses to understand and gain.

Another point in this post, is that i fail to see what is extreme about AoM: Magic and Might. I would give them no more than complex. Based on classic play, a few complex bonus configurations is all this map has as far as difficulty goes, and i have played several of both.

Recommendations:
AoM: Magic - Complex
AoM: Might - Complex.

Marketing - Viewpoint on Extreme
Having had a say back on this post
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 91#1008591
about using the term "Freaking Weird" as a rating, I am more inclined to now object and be discouraged by the use of the word "extreme" as a rating.

Reasoning:
Extreme can be derogatory, not just for my maps as others have this rating also.

From the dictionary, extreme:

* of a character or kind farthest removed from the ordinary or average
* going to the utmost or very great lengths in action, habit, opinion
* farthest from the center or middle; outermost; endmost

It discourages anyone from trying to expand their minds and understand more complex issues in how these versions of RISK games can be played.

Is this what CC wants...to discourage people from joining and playing. Lackattack should be horrified, this is not a good marketing ploy.
Indeed, if I owned the site, as a business decision for the site, something like this would be disuaded.

Suggestion from Marketing Viewpoint
If I may suggest, a more appropriate term woould be "challenging".

From the dictionary, challenging:

* offering a challenge; testing one's ability, endurance,
* stimulating, interesting, and thought-provoking
* provocative; intriguing

That at least inplies there is a degree above complexity but not to the extent that anyone should stay away from these maps if they don't want to learn something and expand their play potential.

Marketing - Game Speed
I don't know if the issue of game time and ability to complete a game quickly has been addressed fully either.

Some games like Doodle of course can be played quickly. Other take days waiting for the global turn timetable to complete.

A speed game of Waterloo for instance would take two-three hours to complete.

But i think this should be important as a marketing consideration, because this is a reason why so many players play Classic and Doodle Earth.
Has this been addressed adequately?
Should there be a rating to determine this also.

I apologise for coming in late and posting this, but I think it is now good time we moved from the business of being subjective to the business of the site, what's best for the site and move onto an objective veiwpoint about this business. Hard for some of us, including myself sometimes, but that's my opinion.

Hope it is appreciated.

Chip asked me about Map Complexity for his filter script - so decided to post in here to bring this to the fore.

C.

Good idea.
This list just needs some updating and it'll be great for his script.

I copy/pasted Coleman's list from a page or two ago and made some edits.

Here's how my list works (the right way ). I feel three-pronged is the way to go because we take the simple ones and put them to one side. We take the complex ones and put them on the other side. Then we just take what's left over in the middle.

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 won't claim to have put every map in the spot I meant to put them (or perhaps I just forgot some gameplay/xml quirk), every map on the list, or even every map on the list just once.


1) Simple

Classic
Africa
Ancient Greece
Arctic
Asia
Australia
Brazil
British Isles
Cairns Coral Coast
Canada
Caribbean Islands
Doodle Earth
Europe
France
Germany
Hong Kong
High Seas
Iberia
Iceland
Indochina
Ireland
Middle Earth
Middle East
Mongol Empire
North America
Portugal
Puget Sound
South America
USA
U.S. Senate
WWII Australia

2) Moderate

Alexander's Empire
American Civil War
BeNeLux
CCU
Chinese Checkers
Circus Maximus
D-Day: Omaha Beach!
Duck and Cover
Dust Bowl
Egypt: Lower
Egypt: Upper
Extreme Global Warming
Great Lakes
Greater China
Luxembourg
Italy
King of the Mountains
Madness
Malta
Midkemdil
Montreal
NYC
Philippines
San Francisco
Scotland
Siege!
Soviet Union
Space
Sydney Metro
Tamriel
Texan Wars
World 2.1
WWII Eastern Front
WWII Iwo Jima


3) Complex



8 Thoughts
Age of Merchants
Age of Realms: Magic
Age of Realms: Mayhem
Age of Realms: Might
Arms Race!
Bamboo Jack
Battle for Iraq!
Battle of Actium
Berlin 1961
Conquer Man
Crossword
Draknor: Level 1
Feudal War
New World
Operation Drug War
Prohibition Chicago
Pearl Harbor
Rail Europe
Rail USA
Solar System
Supermax: Prison Riot!
Treasures of Galapagos
USApocalypse
Valley of the Kings
Waterloo
WWII Gazala
WWII Western Front

Why is 8 thoughts complex?

1. territories belong to multiple continents

2. allied symbol groups bonus

3. negative bonus relating to the mind territory


to a new player, this will be deemed quite complex.

edbeard wrote:1. territories belong to multiple continents

2. allied symbol groups bonus

3. negative bonus relating to the mind territory


to a new player, this will be deemed quite complex.

I guess...but I don't consider 8 thoughts nearly as complex as many of the other maps on that list.

Here are the edits I'd make to Ed's list:
Map: Current Location -> New Location
CCU: Moderate -> Classic
World 2.1: Moderate -> Classic
8 Thoughts: Complex -> Moderate
Crossword: Complex -> Moderate

I think we need another level, really. Maps like Berlin 1961 I feel should belong in the Complex section, but they're nowhere near as complex as maps like Waterloo. If we add an "Extreme" section, I think we'd fix this problem.