Conquer Club

DiM wrote:

Coleman wrote:Those who want super sized maps may find it best to argue for this idea.

That's all I am going to say.

i guess this is where i come in and say i want maps ordered like this:


1. optimized for 800*600 monitors (small maps like mongol empire or germany)
2. optimized for 1024*768 monitors (bigger maps like AoM or France)
3. optimized for 1280*1024 monitors (biggest maps we have now like world 2.1 and great lakes)
4. optimized for 1600*1200 monitors (future maps like troy, prison riot, world 3.0, AoR (chapters 2&3))

prison riot is smaller than world 2.1 fyi

With objective organizing I believe there would be less arguments and less headaches.


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:With objective organizing I believe there would be less arguments and less headaches.


--Andy

and less effective, i suppose.

I'd have to disagree with you there, mibi. The option to organize alphabetically (as it is now), by # of countries, etc, seem pretty helpful.


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:I'd have to disagree with you there, mibi. The option to organize alphabetically (as it is now), by # of countries, etc, seem pretty helpful.


--Andy

I think, by popularity would be very effective.

mibi wrote:

DiM wrote:

Coleman wrote:Those who want super sized maps may find it best to argue for this idea.

That's all I am going to say.

i guess this is where i come in and say i want maps ordered like this:


1. optimized for 800*600 monitors (small maps like mongol empire or germany)
2. optimized for 1024*768 monitors (bigger maps like AoM or France)
3. optimized for 1280*1024 monitors (biggest maps we have now like world 2.1 and great lakes)
4. optimized for 1600*1200 monitors (future maps like troy, prison riot, world 3.0, AoR (chapters 2&3))

prison riot is smaller than world 2.1 fyi

i'm fully aware of the size of prison riot but i also know it would look much better on a different scale. the small map is absolutelly horrible to look at because of the size restrictions and the large one is also a bit cramped.

mibi wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:I'd have to disagree with you there, mibi. The option to organize alphabetically (as it is now), by # of countries, etc, seem pretty helpful.


--Andy

I think, by popularity would be very effective.

popularity is not subjective. the simple fact that popularity can be easily expressed by clear numbers makes it a very objective way of sorting the maps.

DiM wrote:

mibi wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:I'd have to disagree with you there, mibi. The option to organize alphabetically (as it is now), by # of countries, etc, seem pretty helpful.


--Andy

I think, by popularity would be very effective.

popularity is not subjective. the simple fact that popularity can be easily expressed by clear numbers makes it a very objective way of sorting the maps.

given that maps with fewer territories are played quicker, how can popularity be expressed with clear numbers.

what if the maps were rated relative to each other? the ratings could actually change then and we all know classic would top the list anyway

mibi wrote:

DiM wrote:

mibi wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:I'd have to disagree with you there, mibi. The option to organize alphabetically (as it is now), by # of countries, etc, seem pretty helpful.


--Andy

I think, by popularity would be very effective.

popularity is not subjective. the simple fact that popularity can be easily expressed by clear numbers makes it a very objective way of sorting the maps.

given that maps with fewer territories are played quicker, how can popularity be expressed with clear numbers.

popularity can be expressed by the total # of games played. world 2.1 has the most terits and it's still the second most popular map.

yes doodle earth is doing great especially because it takes 5 minutes to finish a game but also because it's possible. if it was a crappy shitty map it wouldn't be played.

Herakilla wrote:what if the maps were rated relative to each other? the ratings could actually change then and we all know classic would top the list anyway

what do you mean relative to eachother?

you mean something like AoM = 0.8 classic or siege = 2.5 africa?
and how would you quantify the maps? by total game numbers?

you could do that, i dont like the idea anymore tho especially since maps like classic have such a head start on new maps so scratch that unless some1 can make a system

what if you had a link liek teh feedback links at the end of a game that you could rate the map? out of 10 stars or something and average the results

Herakilla wrote:what if you had a link liek teh feedback links at the end of a game that you could rate the map? out of 10 stars or something and average the results

yep indeed this would be really nice. to be able to rate a map on a scale from 1 to 10. but only if you complete a game on that map and you can change the vote once you finish another vote.

this is done on other sites and i think it works really well.

DiM wrote:

Herakilla wrote:what if you had a link liek teh feedback links at the end of a game that you could rate the map? out of 10 stars or something and average the results

yep indeed this would be really nice. to be able to rate a map on a scale from 1 to 10. but only if you complete a game on that map and you can change the vote once you finish another vote.

this is done on other sites and i think it works really well.

and like feedback you could only do it once to stop spamming

DiM wrote:

mibi wrote:

DiM wrote:

mibi wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:I'd have to disagree with you there, mibi. The option to organize alphabetically (as it is now), by # of countries, etc, seem pretty helpful.


--Andy

I think, by popularity would be very effective.

popularity is not subjective. the simple fact that popularity can be easily expressed by clear numbers makes it a very objective way of sorting the maps.

given that maps with fewer territories are played quicker, how can popularity be expressed with clear numbers.

popularity can be expressed by the total # of games played. world 2.1 has the most terits and it's still the second most popular map.

yes doodle earth is doing great especially because it takes 5 minutes to finish a game but also because it's possible. if it was a crappy shitty map it wouldn't be played.

Total games played? Wow thats a dumb idea since old maps have months to a years head start on newer maps, regardless of how awesome a new map is. Asia is 100 times more popular than Berlin 1961!... wow asia must be so awesome!! Doesn't sound very useful to me.

mibi wrote:Total games played? Wow thats a dumb idea since old maps have months to a years head start on newer maps, regardless of how awesome a new map is. Asia is 100 times more popular than Berlin 1961!... wow asia must be so awesome!! Doesn't sound very useful to me.

In that case why not organize it by total games played in the past month, or past week, or some other number?

Throwing in another suggestion now, how about a seperate scroll box for the maps because its starting to become a pain to scroll past the maps and to the other options.

Is anything happening with this request? I couldn't see it on the official Suggestions Box post (http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2970).

Much needed feature in my opinion.

I already tend to groups maps as follows:

1. Those pretty much like Risk, but shaped differently. These include the World Map, Autralia Map, Midkermia and Rails (just uses lines and dots instead of areas) etc.... BUT also even "strange shape maps" such as Crossword, US senate and Chinese Checkers.


2. the resource group maps, including the Age of Merchants, and the Age of Realms set.

3. A whole set that has "normal" territory bonuses, but altered attacks, including Duck Hunt, American Civil War, etc.

4. "In between" maps that have varied attacks and/or penalties, etc. -- such as Fuedal War, Nuclear USA, etc.

5. the just plain complicated maps, large maps with all kinds of bonuses, varied attack routes, etc. (D-Day, Pearl Harbor, Waterloo, Actium, etc.).

Sometimes, when talking, I group 3 and 4 together.


BUT I am not sure that separating them in the drop-down is the best way to go ... at least until we get too many to fit on one screen. Even then, I think alphabetizing is the best way. For one thing, there is no gaurantee ANY categories that make sense now will KEEP making sense after more and more maps are added.

I would rather see reccomendations, comments about the various types in the instructions. Instructions would (I think) be easier to edit and manage than trying to change the actual map list constantly. Right now, it is pretty easy to find maps, once you know their names. If you start organizing by categories, that won't be as true.

PLAYER57832 wrote:I already tend to groups maps as follows:

1. Those pretty much like Risk, but shaped differently. These include the World Map, Autralia Map, Midkermia and Rails (just uses lines and dots instead of areas) etc.... BUT also even "strange shape maps" such as Crossword, US senate and Chinese Checkers.

2. the resource group maps, including the Age of Merchants, and the Age of Realms set.

3. A whole set that has "normal" territory bonuses, but altered attacks, including Duck Hunt, American Civil War, etc.

4. "In between" maps that have varied attacks and/or penalties, etc. -- such as Fuedal War, Nuclear USA, etc.

5. the just plain complicated maps, large maps with all kinds of bonuses, varied attack routes, etc. (D-Day, Pearl Harbor, Waterloo, Actium, etc.).

Sometimes, when talking, I group 3 and 4 together.

Agreed. The naming of such groups would have to be optimised, but those are the categories that I think in and I think those are the ones that are useful when selecting a map. I am much more likely to think "I'd like to find a traditional, classic like map to play on" ... than I am to think "I'd like to find a map beginning with A" or "I'd like to find a map optimised for 800 x 600" [ DiM x ]

then PLAYER57832 wrote:BUT I am not sure that separating them in the drop-down is the best way to go ... at least until we get too many to fit on one screen. Even then, I think alphabetizing is the best way. For one thing, there is no gaurantee ANY categories that make sense now will KEEP making sense after more and more maps are added.

Disagreed .
First of all with tabbed/categorised maps there is no reason not to include an "ALL" tab/category so that (the many?) users who 'just like it as it is' can continue to select from an exhaustive list.
Within each category I tend to agree that alphabetical is the best way to go, though it would be interesting to have them in order of 'number of games currently being played on' or 'number of all time games played on', but these would have to be alternatives, not the default.
The categories chosen can of course be updated in future if they cease to be adequate.

then PLAYER57832 wrote:I would rather see recommendations, comments about the various types in the instructions. Instructions would (I think) be easier to edit and manage ...

Agreed.

then PLAYER57832 wrote:... easier to edit and manage than trying to change the actual map list constantly. Right now, it is pretty easy to find maps, once you know their names. If you start organizing by categories, that won't be as true.

Except if you include an "ALL" category And also, via this thread perhaps, if the categories agreed upon are good then they should result in an improvement, not confusion.

Cicero