First Posts

[MrBenn]

While regular followers of a specific map thread may not need to pay much attention to the first post of a map thread, the first post should play an important role in keeping visitors fully abreast of current developments and giving a synopsis of the developmental journey.

What information do you think is essential to the first post, and which maps (or mapmakers) stand out as good examples of map-thread management?

[captainwalrus]

Name of map, mapmaker, size (large and small), what version it is on, links to previous versions, a list of what unique gameplay features it has. Updateing the title is always nice. Carniswk always seems to do that. He puts what he wants to be discussed in the title, (i.e. WWII - Stalingrad [D] V26(p19) [POLL] AA Batteries?)

[the.killing.44]

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=59458

Though a little over-the-top, it's incredible. I don't think we need to make everyone do that; if everybody followed the ones outlined in the "How to make a map," it would be so much easier to follow.

[Incandenza]

The first post should have:
1. the most current version of the map (large and small if necessary)
2. all the map details (# of terits, # of starting terits, bonuses, gameplay features, etc.)
3. if the map features starting neutrals, than there should be a version of the map with all proposed neutrals. It doesn't have to be the most current map graphics-wise, but the gameplay should be the same as the most current version.
4. a FAQ might be nice, so that, for instance, if a commenter on page 20 asks about an issue that was resolved on page 10, the mapmakers can refer said late commenter to the FAQ

The way Premier2k did the first post for Atlantis was absolutely top-notch. Concur with 44 that pi's first post is exemplary. And if I do say so myself, I think I did a damn good job keeping up the first post in Trench Warfare.

[natty dread]

[*]Latest version as an image at the top, and all previous versions as links to the images.

[*]Bullet points of the current discussion & suggestions, anything the mapmaker would particularly want the reader's feedback on

[*]All information and specs of the map, gameplay-wise: number of territories & continents, any special features, etc.

[*]Perhaps a short introduction to the map. What, why, when, where...

[Premier2k]

The way Premier2k did the first post for Atlantis was absolutely top-notch.

As much as I'd love to take credit for Atlantis' first post I have to pass the credit on to Nemesischild, he put it together I just posted it up and checked it for errors. (Of which there were a lot ) Thanks anyway, we are pleased with it.

A bit of background on a map is always good, it often helps the reviewers understand why a particular map is being made and gives insight to the mapmakers train of thought.

[WidowMakers]

The first post should have:
1. the most current version of the map (large and small if necessary)
2. all the map details (# of terits, # of starting terits, bonuses, gameplay features, etc.)
3. if the map features starting neutrals, than there should be a version of the map with all proposed neutrals. It doesn't have to be the most current map graphics-wise, but the gameplay should be the same as the most current version.
4. a FAQ might be nice, so that, for instance, if a commenter on page 20 asks about an issue that was resolved on page 10, the mapmakers can refer said late commenter to the FAQ

The way Premier2k did the first post for Atlantis was absolutely top-notch. Concur with 44 that pi's first post is exemplary. And if I do say so myself, I think I did a damn good job keeping up the first post in Trench Warfare.

[*]Latest version as an image at the top, and all previous versions as links to the images.

[*]Bullet points of the current discussion & suggestions, anything the mapmaker would particularly want the reader's feedback on

[*]All information and specs of the map, gameplay-wise: number of territories & continents, any special features, etc.

[*]Perhaps a short introduction to the map. What, why, when, where...

These are both very good. All I would add is an updated Thread Title after each image update (V1, V2, etc) and the pages it is on (besides page 1)

WM

[MrBenn]

I was about to post a new thread and remembered that I started this one a long time ago....

I'm wanting to try and standardise the first post of map development threads, and would be interested to see what information people thought would be required, and what is going to be most useful. I have some ideas in my head but will wait until other have given some more feedback first...

[Victor Sullivan]

You should institute a "Foundry Handbook" much like the Tournament Forum has

[thenobodies80]

You should institute a "Foundry Handbook" much like the Tournament Forum has

How your post is related with the topic?
We need to collect informations before to write/update the handbook. (althought what you said it's true)

Anyway, MrBenn's question is easy and clear:

What informations do you like to see posted as mandatory in the first post?

[Victor Sullivan]

Sigh... The relevance is "what to put in the first post" as well as many other things could be put in the Foundry Handbook. To answer MrBenn's question, I'd say what needs to be in the first post is:

1. The latest update of the map in [bigimg] tags
2. All older versions in a [spoiler] tag
3. Stamps
4. Brief explanation of the map
5. Any information (such as neutral counts) that is not displayed on the map

That's all I can think of, anyhow.

[ender516]

I think we need to be a bit more explicit about your point number 5, and there should be access to the XML, either through a link or within a [ code ] block.

[MarshalNey]

From a post I made in natty's Newsletter survey thread some 10 months ago:

Threads themselves could often use some cleaning when they rise above 10 pages, but since this seems impractical to accomplish, they should instead have a really good, short first post. If necessary, put all of the in-depth details on a second post that more interested readers can delve into.

Mapmakers should have a short first post on their thread that has, preferably in this order:

1) A clear, concise explanation of what the map concept and goals are.

2) An outline of what the mapmaker specifically wants to get feedback about; too many mapmakers leave this stuff "buried" in their thread (e.g., 'see my post on page 34'). Take a look at natty_dread's current map threads for examples- LunarWar and Nordic Countries do an excellent job with this.

3) What the foundry mods' current concerns are for this map. I didn't mention this in my previous post, but I think it would help relay to the mods what the mapmaker thinks that they want, and relay to visitors what they can do to help advance the map.

4) A map intended for a layman that comes before any other maps (i.e., before '88' test maps, before wire maps, etc.) or, if you don't have a map made yet, an in-depth explanation of your concept and goals from #1 above.

5) Technical details and previous versions last, preferably hidden as spoilers.

hmmmm, maybe that list could be a little more verbose... Oh here we go! A post from me, also 10 months ago...

Finally, thread length and the first page of a post. These are serious problems in a lot of map threads. I won't elaborate too much as this post is becoming way too long itself, but obviously you can't expect someone to come into a thread 40 pages long and read it all before posting. So be patient with redundant comments, even if you feel the issue brought up has been put to bed.

The first post should be a table of contents, but after a while it in many threads it ceases to get updated properly. Mapmakers like to post 'previous versions' and '888 versions' to show the development of the map and its current viability. This is good for thoroughness, but this really should always go last on the first post as it's not really going to give casual viewers any useful information.

In many ways, mapmakers construct their first post for the approval of the mods rather than being a primer for the casual viewer. Technical information that means little to the laymen gets more of the focus.

Good heavens, when did I have that much time to type this stuff? If you see the full post, you'll know what I mean.

Anyway, the question about First Posts can be looked at several different ways. Do you want to know:
(1) What one feels the minimum requirements for a First Post should be?
(2) What one feels the average First Post should include?
(3) What one feels the ideal (perfect) First Post would have?

Or all three?

I think it's good not just to include minimums in a Handbook, myself. That way you can give some guidance for mapmakers who are willing to put in more effort. I'm of the firm opinion that the better the First Post, the better/more responsive CA feedback can be, and the better/more responsive Community feedback can be.

Marshal Ney

[MrBenn]

Expanding on from that, it is common practice when starting a tournament to "reserve" the first couple of posts in a thread for future updates... is that something that we could implement/replicate here in the foundry? And if so, how would people want it split up?

[isaiah40]

Expanding on from that, it is common practice when starting a tournament to "reserve" the first couple of posts in a thread for future updates... is that something that we could implement/replicate here in the foundry? And if so, how would people want it split up?

Reading Marshal's post I got to thinking that I should do it in the future. I think it would help with the development and for the ease of reading. Maybe like Marshal stated a table of contents so to speak, with links to important updates, major changes/concerns etc. That way people can go directly to that page/post and read what the end result was.

[Victor Sullivan]

Expanding on from that, it is common practice when starting a tournament to "reserve" the first couple of posts in a thread for future updates... is that something that we could implement/replicate here in the foundry? And if so, how would people want it split up?

You could have the more essential things in the first post, such as what I described previously, then have current discussion topics for the second post to allow new commenters to easily get involved.