Map Organization Project [Ver 3 - Pg 13]

[Coleman]

I like everything WidowMakers showed and am willing to push back trying to
split up maps into easier to manage categories until we get some real
community complaints about how unmanageable it is. I was just hoping to
get ahead of the curve there.

I would like to know if everything in WidowMaker's peripherals is to
everyone's satisfaction, and if so, I'd like to get back on to the track of
compiling a post that represents all of our opinions as cohesively as possible.

Something I'd like to debate with DiM is how many of these classifications for
frequently seen complexities he feels are worth pointing out and labeling in
map info as "not standard". He obviously thinks some of them are
completely pointless classifications, I'd like to find out what his list would be.

[WidowMakers]

Something I'd like to debate with DiM is how many of these classifications for frequently seen complexities he feels are worth pointing out and labeling in
map info as "not standard". He obviously thinks some of them are
completely pointless classifications, I'd like to find out what his list would be.

When you say classifications you mean the Map Feature Groupings correct?

Are you saying that some of them are too basic (1-way borders for example) and don't need to be listed?

My suggestion is that anything that does not show up on the Classic Map should be listed in this list. You might not agree, but there will be no confusion if they all are.


WM

[rebelman]

I like everything WidowMakers showed and am willing to push back trying to
split up maps into easier to manage categories until we get some real
community complaints about how unmanageable it is. I was just hoping to
get ahead of the curve there.

I would like to know if everything in WidowMaker's peripherals is to
everyone's satisfaction, and if so, I'd like to get back on to the track of
compiling a post that represents all of our opinions as cohesively as possible.

Something I'd like to debate with DiM is how many of these classifications for
frequently seen complexities he feels are worth pointing out and labeling in
map info as "not standard". He obviously thinks some of them are
completely pointless classifications, I'd like to find out what his list would be.

seriously coleman no offence on DiM but he totally over estimates the intellect of the average player - what WM said makes sense - if you listen to DiM every map is simple and uncomplicated. I think this a perspective that is unique to him on this site.

Also WM liked those screen shots above - could do the trick, although i still believe joe soap noob would love to see maps classified as easy medium hard insane.

[Coleman]

I don't know how I could add those extra sorting or organization methods in
good faith when I know that DiM and possibly a lurker or two that agrees
with him is going to be upset about it.

If the first step in the journey towards getting those in is everything
WidowMakers posted I'm willing to take it and try another step later.

[benjikat]

I think some kind of classification based on complexity should be included, but i think it should be a simple badge given to the "classic" maps - i.e. those that are as simple as the Classic map in gameplay terms. The new user to the site should then be strongly advised to play those maps first.

To classify other maps' complexities beyond that however seems too hard, as there would always be disagreements. (e.g. I for one always thought AoMerchants was really easy to understand and still don't really understand why others have so much difficulty with it - although I'm grateful for their points ).

This "badge" could either be a little graphic that sits top right of each map thumbnail, or could be a toggle at the top (i.e. "classic only / all"). It could be that new users are blocked from joining the "non-classic" maps until they have played 5 games (i.e. in the same way as for team games).


I do however like everything WM presented above, and will be very interested to see how much the ratings correlate with the number of games played on the maps initially - although over time this correlation is obviously self-reinforcing - especially if the default sorting is set to "rating".

This self-reinforcement of the popularity of popular maps leads to the issue of how to introduce new maps to the mix. Sites like Youtube tackle this problem by pushing "recent views/ ratings" to the fore - their all-time lists have become very stagnant.

Having said all that, the "new" label as presently used may be enough.

[DiM]

i like, no, i actually love what wm did. that's exactly what i want to see.

maps sorted either by a-z or by rating.
info link that takes you to a screen with the info on the map
the rating that also takes you to the feedback section and the glossary of gimmicks that has to be in the instructions and in the info link we have links to it.

i simply love it.
simple yet effective.
great job wm.

now all we have to do is make the info for each map, and come up with the glossary then convince lack to do it.

[yeti_c]

Loving your work WM - is that coding? or do you just doctor images...

If the former - then don't ever complain that you can't do coding...

C.

[WidowMakers]

now all we have to do is make the info for each map, and come up with the glossary then convince lack to do it.

Yep. And I don't know how easy it will be to build the map select screen teh way I made it. We shall see.

Loving your work WM - is that coding? or do you just doctor images...

If the former - then don't ever complain that you can't do coding...

C.

Thanks. It is coded with Photoshop.

WM

[Coleman]

Loving your work WM - is that coding? or do you just doctor images...

If the former - then don't ever complain that you can't do coding...

That's armature of you. You should be able to tell they weren't coded in. If you notice on the first posted they are sorted A-Z but sorting by rating is what is selected.

[DiM]

Loving your work WM - is that coding? or do you just doctor images...

If the former - then don't ever complain that you can't do coding...

That's armature of you. You should be able to tell they weren't coded in. If you notice on the first posted they are sorted A-Z but sorting by rating is what is selected.

yeti got owned

[Coleman]

Loving your work WM - is that coding? or do you just doctor images...

If the former - then don't ever complain that you can't do coding...

That's armature of you. You should be able to tell they weren't coded in. If you notice on the first posted they are sorted A-Z but sorting by rating is what is selected.

yeti got owned

I couldn't resist, he's so much better at coding then me, at least now I feel like maybe I'm more observant.

[yeti_c]

Loving your work WM - is that coding? or do you just doctor images...

If the former - then don't ever complain that you can't do coding...

That's armature of you. You should be able to tell they weren't coded in. If you notice on the first posted they are sorted A-Z but sorting by rating is what is selected.

yeti got owned

I couldn't resist, he's so much better at coding then me, at least now I feel like maybe I'm more observant.

Nah - I'm just hungover today...

C.

[gimil]

yeti_c always has an excuse

[Coleman]

I'm going to start posting this over and over again as we update it, like a map. Please keep in mind this post to lackattack is our end goal.

Version 3

Changes

• Removed Categories
• Improved the Information Page portion of the post
• Merged Rating System and Map Feedback into one suggestion
• Added information to Rating & Feedback, including peripheral links

Our Evolving Post To Lackattack

Greetings from the Map Foundry!

We in the foundry have begun to realize that as we add more and more maps to your game the learning curve for new players continues to increase.

It was never our intent to contribute towards alienating new players by shoving a giant list of unfamiliar maps down their throats. We recognize that when you came up with the alphabetical listing for the maps you had a great idea in putting Classic first, as it allows new players to instantly find something familiar right away.

Unfortunately, these new players often eventually want to try new maps and right now the alphabetical list, while convenient in many instances, is not the best medium for new players to decide what their second map should be.

So the foundry has been hard at work to provide you with a list of possible solutions to this problem.

We want players to be able to find maps that suit them quickly and efficiently in a way that is comfortable to them.

With that in mind We've come up with a few effective ways of helping new users identify which maps would be good for them to try.

1) Info Links Under The Pictures

These would be well written information about each map. This information would include:
• number of territories and continents
• the gameplay features present
• accompanying story if relevant
• map background, recommended gameplay settings
• and a helpful description of the map.
We suggest implementing this feature in a fashion similar or identical to these peripherals that WidowMakers has created:
http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/6016 ... eenwv2.jpg
http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/1179/mapinfoab0.jpg (I'll html encode the information posts for you)
http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/5226 ... eensq8.jpg

2) Community Map Rating & Feedback System

Next to the links we brought up in 1) There could be 5 CC stars. A perfect map has 5 red cc star. A horrible map has 5 gray cc stars.

These stars are an average rating from players who have completed the maps. Our idea is at the end of the game when you load up the links for players to leave feedback for one another you also give them the option to rate and leave feedback for the map.

Under our system players can only rate maps they have played and they can only rate once, but just like player feedback a player can alter this rating at their leisure.

In addition on the find games screen and start a game screen we think it would be beneficial for players to be able to switch between sorting by A-Z and sorting by Rating.

These ratings and feedback could show up like a profile page for the map. We have not yet built a peripheral for that, but here are some for portions of the feature:
http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/6223 ... eenhd5.jpg
http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/9895 ... ackjr8.jpg

It is our sincere and greatest hope that you are willing to work with us and our ideas to improve your website. We have put a lot of work into them and are waiting to hear from you.

Thank you.

[Kaplowitz]

If you have never played a map, would it go to the back? b/c this might encourage people to never try new maps cause its always at the bottom; i realize you can choose A-Z...but idk.

I don't know what you mean. Go to the back of what?

The ratings are based off of everyone ranking the map. So thousands of people will be voting (0-5) and leaving map feedback. You can only leave a rating 1 time per map. SO if you sort by rating, the maps with the highest rating (MAX 5) will be at the top and so on down to the lowest.

And you will be able to change your rating in the future if you wish (just like the current feedback system).

WM

I thought it was only your rating, so that your favorite map would be in the front.

[Coleman]

That's not a bad idea. Being able to sort by community rating and your own rating.

Edit: I take it back, I might just rate to sort the page the way I want, messing up the results of the rating system.

[MrBenn]

I think some kind of classification based on complexity should be included....

Speaking as a relative newcomer, I think the 5-star Horrible/Perfect rating should be replaced with a 3/4 tier Simple-Normal-Difficult/Complex rating.
This makes the rating purely for the gameplay of a map, rather than any aesthetic aspects... after all, the purpose of this project is to help people find maps suitable for their level of play..

[MrBenn]

Oh, and as somebody mentioned earlier (can't find the quote now), the ratings should be 'recent' rather than 'all-time'.

[Coleman]

I think the ratings should include anyone from the scoreboard, but if someone goes off the scoreboard their rating no longer effects the average.

[WidowMakers]

I think the ratings should include anyone from the scoreboard, but if someone goes off the scoreboard their rating no longer effects the average.

I like this idea. It makes it a rolling average. That way if everyone would leave now, the maps would be reset for the next group and they could rate them.

Good Idea

WM

[Coleman]

I think the ratings should include anyone from the scoreboard, but if someone goes off the scoreboard their rating no longer effects the average.

I like this idea. It makes it a rolling average. That way if everyone would leave now, the maps would be reset for the next group and they could rate them.

Good Idea

WM

I wish feedback worked this way as well, but maybe that's an entirely different and unrelated suggestion.

[yeti_c]

I think some kind of classification based on complexity should be included....

Speaking as a relative newcomer, I think the 5-star Horrible/Perfect rating should be replaced with a 3/4 tier Simple-Normal-Difficult/Complex rating.
This makes the rating purely for the gameplay of a map, rather than any aesthetic aspects... after all, the purpose of this project is to help people find maps suitable for their level of play..

I disagree here - in so far as you're lowering the base value...

I'd prefer the numbers to be higher - i.e. 10 ratings...

Or half stars perhaps...

C.

PS BTW - as it'll be an average then will you want it rounded to the nearest star?

i.e. 2.5-3.4 = 3 stars?

Or are you (or WM) gonna make some percent stars... with 10, 20, 30...% of the star coloured in?

C.

[WidowMakers]

Or half stars perhaps...

C.

PS BTW - as it'll be an average then will you want it rounded to the nearest star?

i.e. 2.5-3.4 = 3 stars?

Or are you (or WM) gonna make some percent stars... with 10, 20, 30...% of the star coloured in?

C.

That was what I was going to suggest but I do not know how to code it. There is a big difference between having 2 graphics (1 red star one gray) and picking between the two. And then having 5 gray stars that are colored based on a rolling average.

Lack likes things simple. So if you can come up with a simple to do teh other stars with % of each I am sure he will not mind.

Or this is totally beyond my realm and it is easy. In that case do it.

WM

[yeti_c]

Or half stars perhaps...

C.

PS BTW - as it'll be an average then will you want it rounded to the nearest star?

i.e. 2.5-3.4 = 3 stars?

Or are you (or WM) gonna make some percent stars... with 10, 20, 30...% of the star coloured in?

C.

That was what I was going to suggest but I do not know how to code it. There is a big difference between having 2 graphics (1 red star one gray) and picking between the two. And then having 5 gray stars that are colored based on a rolling average.

Lack likes things simple. So if you can come up with a simple to do teh other stars with % of each I am sure he will not mind.

Or this is totally beyond my realm and it is easy. In that case do it.

WM

Would be pretty simple - the GFX would be the hard part...

If you could make 11 images ranging from 0% to 100% of the stars... then the rest would simply be choosing the correct star to put on the screen... simple.

C.

[mibi]

What exactly is a 1-5 rating suppose to say about a map? I think the purpose is a bit unclear.

It seems we are trying to add some very unhelpful and ambiguous information with a 1-5 rating. You have players rating a map for whatever they feel like, game play, graphics, whether they won their last game, whether or not they hate people from Africa or any other reason they conjure up... and then that information is aggregated and presented to the average user as what exactly?

A feedback system would be better with certain feedback voted 'most helpful' like Amazon or something. Implementing a 1-5 rating is spending a lot of energy to pee on ourselves.