Moderator: Cartographers
ender516 wrote:On the face of it, the idea of a Feedback Committee is good, but I am not sure how it differs from the current Map Surveyors group, or the earlier Map Incubator concept.
Victor Sullivan wrote:ender516 wrote:On the face of it, the idea of a Feedback Committee is good, but I am not sure how it differs from the current Map Surveyors group, or the earlier Map Incubator concept.
Of course, Map Surveyors doesn't have a forum for map discussion and the like.
-Sully
ender516 wrote:Victor Sullivan wrote:ender516 wrote:On the face of it, the idea of a Feedback Committee is good, but I am not sure how it differs from the current Map Surveyors group, or the earlier Map Incubator concept.
Of course, Map Surveyors doesn't have a forum for map discussion and the like.
-Sully
The Map Surveyors group may not have a private forum, but why does it need one? The Map Surveyors should be posting in the individual map threads discussing each map, and if they have general issues to discuss, this forum seems like the right place.
ender516 wrote:On the face of it, the idea of a Feedback Committee is good, but I am not sure how it differs from the current Map Surveyors group, or the earlier Map Incubator concept.
right now the CAs barely have 2-3 posts per week in the whole foundry.
TaCktiX wrote:right now the CAs barely have 2-3 posts per week in the whole foundry.
Bulls***. I've posted on every single map that is currently working toward a gameplay stamp, oftentimes once per time the mapmaker has replied or updated. And I know I'm not the only one who maintains that level of activity on their section. While I plan to "branch out" to other parts, I'm trying to test my time to see if I can maintain what I'm officially responsible for. This is a completely part-time job for me, as it is for everyone else.
TaCktiX wrote:right now the CAs barely have 2-3 posts per week in the whole foundry.
Bulls***. I've posted on every single map that is currently working toward a gameplay stamp, oftentimes once per time the mapmaker has replied or updated. And I know I'm not the only one who maintains that level of activity on their section. While I plan to "branch out" to other parts, I'm trying to test my time to see if I can maintain what I'm officially responsible for. This is a completely part-time job for me, as it is for everyone else.
Victor Sullivan wrote:....
And cairns, I believe Industrial Helix and the FAs are in charge of the Drafting Room/Melting Pot, TaCktiX, MarshalNey, and iancanton are Gameplay, isaiah40 and RedBaron0 are Graphics, OliverFA is XML, and nobodies is Final Forge. But yes, a task/assignment list would be nice.
-Sully
Victor Sullivan wrote:I can at least vouch for MarshalNey - he was only just recently added back to the CAs. He had computer troubles and was gone for like an entire month. Not to pick favorites here, but he's someone I admire a lot for his contributions to the Foundry. You'll find he's consistent and he's always insightful and types friggen dissertations on map gameplay.
cairnswk wrote:...where is the list that states who is responsible for which section?
I found the CAs list, but it would be nice if we could see who is responsible for what.
DiM wrote:but the problem is that right now the foundry is not the perfect place for a new guy to start map making.
DiM wrote:anyway i do not want to turn this in to a CA bashing.
DiM wrote:ender516 wrote:On the face of it, the idea of a Feedback Committee is good, but I am not sure how it differs from the current Map Surveyors group, or the earlier Map Incubator concept.
i don't know who belongs to the map surveyors group or what happened to the incubator concept. all i know is that we need more input from the CAs and FAs.
out of curiosity i looked at some of my old map threads. they're filled with posts from the officials. keyogi, despite our numerous differences and disputes, took his time and posted in my thread on every page, sometimes even on a daily basis. andy was present as well. right now the CAs barely have 2-3 posts per week in the whole foundry. don't get me wrong, i understand that people have personal lives and free time is a very valuable commodity. heck, this is the very reason i left CC 3 years ago, i had no time. so keep the current CAs as their experience is invaluable, get more FAs from the "young generation" and form that Committee that gives feedback daily not weekly.
oh, and feedback from this committee should in no way be regarded as 100% official. they simply have to pop in a and comment like i do or like any other foundry user does.
thenobodies80 wrote:About the amount of CAs posts, I don't think is the right way to see the Foundry process. Even if it's true that we could post a bit more, I have to remind you (like gimil did with me) that CAs are here to facilitate the Foundry process, not to rule it. If I have to be honest and I have to find where the Foundry lacks of something, then I think that there's lack of community partecipation into the developement.
ender516 wrote:I wonder if declining general interest in the Foundry isn't just a matter of the Foundry being a victim of its own success. With the huge number of maps available, I doubt many people say to themselves, "I'm sick of all these, I need something new!" So perhaps the vast majority of CC users are content with the selection they have now, and don't dive into the Foundry to push for the next killer map. Without that grass roots support, the development of new maps will have to depend on the small diehard group of people who enjoy this process at any speed, perhaps simply for its own sake.
The Bison King wrote:I don't think removing pre-existing maps should be considered. Especially as a solution to declining interest in up-coming maps. To me that seems like backwards thinking. If everyone in the world had enough food to eat you wouldn't start starving people so that food manufacturers would have something to do.
The Bison King wrote:There will always be room for more maps.
DiM wrote:ender516 wrote:I wonder if declining general interest in the Foundry isn't just a matter of the Foundry being a victim of its own success. With the huge number of maps available, I doubt many people say to themselves, "I'm sick of all these, I need something new!" So perhaps the vast majority of CC users are content with the selection they have now, and don't dive into the Foundry to push for the next killer map. Without that grass roots support, the development of new maps will have to depend on the small diehard group of people who enjoy this process at any speed, perhaps simply for its own sake.
you know i was thinking the same thing and i might have a solution. however it might not be something that many people would like.
simply weed out the poor maps. when a map falls under a certain performance standard simply remove it. there are maps who did not get in 2 YEARS as many games as classic does in 2-3 DAYS.
do we really need 190 maps? yes i know even the crappiest map has some fans that will be disappointed. but that's the only way that we could make room for more maps and still keep a high level of quality.
ender516 wrote: I agree with The Bison King that organizing the Browse Maps function so that the user is more likely to find a map they enjoy would be a better way to market this product. Consumers enjoy choice, but don't want to be overwhelmed by options.
The Bison King wrote:However it may be time (I'm just throwing this out there) to have some sort of method for categorizing maps instead of having them all together on one giant generic page. But that's really a different conversation.
ender516 wrote:The Map Surveyors group may not have a private forum, but why does it need one?
WILLIAMS5232 wrote:that would be great to have the maps organized other than alphabetically. not sure how it could be done...genre, size, dificulty.....
TaCktiX wrote: A better one is to look at CA posts since last update per map, which I've got a near-100% on Gameplay-stage maps.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users