Map Complexity [Public Discussion/Review]

Topics that are not maps. Discuss general map making concepts, techniques, contests, etc, here.

Moderators: Cartographers, Global Moderators

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Map Complexity [Public Discussion/Review]

Postby cairnswk on Sat Nov 03, 2012 12:03 pm

Would it be helpful to put a poll up now to determine what players want in this regard for the number of levels of map complexity?
User avatar
Private cairnswk
 
Posts: 11496
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 8:32 pm
Medals: 51
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) General Achievement (2) Map Contribution (36) General Contribution (3)

Re: Map Complexity [Public Discussion/Review]

Postby MrBenn on Sat Nov 03, 2012 3:16 pm

In the past I would have argued for 4 levels of difficulty, but now believe you only need 3: Basic --> Advanced --> Complex. I don;t think you need to specify a particular number of game features that make a map fit any one of the categories, as this leads to banal discussions about maps like British Isles which are basic, but have some one-way borders... On a similar vein, size needs to be a separate consideration.. World 2.1 is Advanced, not because of it's size, but due to the use of overriding bonus zones and odd territories that don't count for anything. At the same time as gameplay features and map size, the visual appearance of a map makes a massive contribution to apparent difficulty. Bamboo Jack messes with your brain but is actually pretty straightforward to play once you get the hang of it... Map Categorisation is always going to be most useful to players looking for new maps to test themselves - and it would be better to rate a map harder than it is (after practice) in order to protect those players who aren't prepared to read everything or look too closely and most likely to complain!
Image
PB: 2661 | He's blue... If he were green he would die | No mod would be stupid enough to do that
User avatar
Lieutenant MrBenn
Retired Team Member
 
Posts: 7050
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 9:32 am
Location: Off Duty
Medals: 67
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (2)
General Achievement (6) Clan Achievement (1) Map Contribution (7) Tournament Contribution (2) General Contribution (15)

Re: Map Complexity [Public Discussion/Review]

Postby ManBungalow on Sat Nov 03, 2012 3:28 pm

Two categories:

Standard
Non-standard

Make it as accessible to new users as possible. The default map selection for new users should be Standard, but otherwise variable. Let the tags from the other thread cover the rest of the map elements.
Image
User avatar
Colonel ManBungalow
 
Posts: 3336
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:02 am
Location: On a giant rock orbiting a star somewhere
Medals: 84
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (4) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (4) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (4) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (2)
General Achievement (10) Clan Achievement (12) Tournament Contribution (3) General Contribution (6)

Re: Map Complexity [Public Discussion/Review]

Postby greenoaks on Sat Nov 03, 2012 6:32 pm

cairnswk wrote:Would it be helpful to put a poll up now to determine what players want in this regard for the number of levels of map complexity?

i'm not sure that a poll would resolve anything as there are at least 3 discussions going on.

Formula
Number of catorgories
Is the easiest group Standard/Basic or something else
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class greenoaks
 
Posts: 9997
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 12:47 am
Medals: 138
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (4) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (3)
Assassin Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (4) Freestyle Achievement (4) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (4)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (30) General Achievement (3) Clan Achievement (14)
Tournament Contribution (34) General Contribution (4)

Re: Map Complexity [Public Discussion/Review]

Postby Metsfanmax on Sat Nov 03, 2012 7:11 pm

I think that complexity should be the only standard here. The levels should not be named things that imply that some maps are harder or more "advanced" than other maps, because that implies that people who only play standard maps like Classic are not as good as other players. I would prefer tags that discriminate only on how many things you need to be aware of in order to win the round.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 4175
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm
Location: NY
Medals: 43
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1)
Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (7) Clan Achievement (2)
General Contribution (7)

Re: Map Complexity [Public Discussion/Review]

Postby ender516 on Sun Nov 04, 2012 2:51 am

laughingcavalier wrote:
greenoaks wrote:there is no need to have anything before Standard. Classic is the basic training map. the map for beginners.

sure, split the maps above Classic into many groups but it is pointless to create a group before Beginners because the only thing before beginners is 'Never played Risk before'.


+1 again
And the difficulty of deciding which complexity rating a map gets is more argument for keeping the complexity ratings simple & few.
You could say doodle is more complex than classic for example - because the action is so fast on a small map you need to get your game right form turn 1 ....

Only 3 complexity levels please.

-2
You are correct to say that Classic is the basic training map, but many games provide special simplified variants intended to make for faster games. Monopoly comes to mind. I think it's a good idea to identify maps where one can find an ultra-fast game, which can happen on the tiny maps.
koontz1973 wrote:
cairnswk wrote:
koontz1973 wrote:If we go with Dukasaur, then we could have 10 or more levels of complexity. This would be way too much. 5 is a good number.

    Beginners - Doodle
    Standard - Classic
    Challenging - 1982
    Complex - Das Schloss
    Uber Complex - Stalingrad, Waterloo


i agree with koontz about 5 levels...but koontz how the hell did you get Waterloo into the Uber Complex category and Das Schloss into the Complex category?

Personal preference. But this leads onto the next discussion. How the hell do you put a map into a category without hiring a math professor to run complex equations.

My vote would then go for:
Standard Lite
Standard
Challenging
Complex
Uber Complex

and leave it up to someone else to put maps into each. :P

Human factors engineering recognizes that the mind likes to categorize sets of items into 5 (+/- 2) classes. Go with the sweet spot of 5 categories. Dukasaur is right about calculating the complexity via a formula. If we are going to have a proper map database and browser, then we can automatically calculate a complexity based on XML features (number of territories, presence of complicating factors, etc.) and we can allow players to rate maps in a manner similar to the way they rate other players, with scores from 1 to 5 in one or more categories, and possibly tags or even textual comments, like the old feedback system. (Those might be used to flame map makers, so they should be permitted to respond, or we might have to have the Foundry folks moderate them.) The [browse maps] button on the game finder would show summarized values, but clicking on a thumbnail would take you to a detailed explanation of the calculated value and a list of user ratings.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class ender516
 
Posts: 4452
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 6:07 pm
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
Medals: 37
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1)
Fog of War Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) General Achievement (9)
Map Contribution (5) General Contribution (11)

Re: Map Complexity [Public Discussion/Review]

Postby greenoaks on Sun Nov 04, 2012 4:11 am

ender516 wrote:
laughingcavalier wrote:
greenoaks wrote:there is no need to have anything before Standard. Classic is the basic training map. the map for beginners.

sure, split the maps above Classic into many groups but it is pointless to create a group before Beginners because the only thing before beginners is 'Never played Risk before'.


+1 again
And the difficulty of deciding which complexity rating a map gets is more argument for keeping the complexity ratings simple & few.
You could say doodle is more complex than classic for example - because the action is so fast on a small map you need to get your game right form turn 1 ....

Only 3 complexity levels please.

-2
You are correct to say that Classic is the basic training map, but many games provide special simplified variants intended to make for faster games. Monopoly comes to mind. I think it's a good idea to identify maps where one can find an ultra-fast game, which can happen on the tiny maps.

lets also have a group called Standard Heavy as well for those who want a long game without the complexity.

or we could put all of those maps that have standard or close to standard gameplay into one group called Basic and give a Small tag to the small maps and XL tags to the big ones.
a 2nd group colled Challenging would contain maps that have several xml features
a 3rd group called Complex would contain those maps containing many xml features and unusual bonus structures

**the Small or XL tags would be applied to all maps regardless of which category the maps were in**
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class greenoaks
 
Posts: 9997
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 12:47 am
Medals: 138
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (4) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (3)
Assassin Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (4) Freestyle Achievement (4) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (4)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (30) General Achievement (3) Clan Achievement (14)
Tournament Contribution (34) General Contribution (4)

Re: Map Complexity [Public Discussion/Review]

Postby agentcom on Sun Nov 04, 2012 11:10 am

I think 3 or 4 levels is good. For the same reason as is the joke here:

Image

And for the same reason that Google Maps has a 4-level rating system. And for the same reason that the 5-star ratings system here on CC is ... well ... problematic. People have varying opinions of how to use these ratings systems and that only increases as you add more and more levels to any given system.

If you have one reviewer (or even one team of reviewers) get as complex as you want. Work out a formula that ranks them on a scale from 1 to 100. Or even rank every single map on CC. That's fine. But if you're leaving it up to the masses then I think Simple, Advanced, Complex or something like that is better than other alternatives.
Image
User avatar
Colonel agentcom
 
Posts: 3930
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 8:50 pm
Medals: 73
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (15) General Achievement (7)
Clan Achievement (8) General Contribution (2)

Re: Map Complexity [Public Discussion/Review]

Postby Dukasaur on Sun Nov 04, 2012 11:52 am

agentcom wrote:People have varying opinions of how to use these ratings systems and that only increases as you add more and more levels to any given system.

If you have one reviewer (or even one team of reviewers) get as complex as you want. Work out a formula that ranks them on a scale from 1 to 100. Or even rank every single map on CC. That's fine. But if you're leaving it up to the masses then I think Simple, Advanced, Complex or something like that is better than other alternatives.

If you look at my proposal (bottom of page 1) you see that the subjective opinion rating of the players is only one of 3 elements, and the other 2 are based on objective criteria. I have a lot of regard for statistical robustness.

It's true what you say that opinion-based ratings are highly problematic, but if they are only one element among several then the distortion should not be too bad.
User avatar
Captain Dukasaur
Head Socialite
Head Socialite
 
Posts: 11164
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:49 pm
Location: Beautiful Niagara
Medals: 136
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (3)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (3)
Cross-Map Achievement (4) Beta Map Achievement (2) Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (19)
General Achievement (15) Clan Achievement (9) Training Achievement (2) Challenge Achievement (5) Tournament Contribution (31)

Re: Map Complexity [Public Discussion/Review]

Postby DoomYoshi on Sun Nov 04, 2012 12:00 pm

@koontz

Doodle isn't simpler gameplay wise. A mistake on doodle means your game is over. A mistake on World 2.1 and you are ok. Doodle should be at the same level as Classic.

@metsfanmax:

I agree. But people who like classic are boring people.

@agentcom

Don't forget that boxing matches use exactly the same system that the internet does. In other words, if you suck, you get 8. If you don't suck you get 10 (or 9). This system, while it frustrates the hell out of anybody who thinks about the system, works to judge million dollar bouts, it should also be good enough to judge our maps.
show
User avatar
Sergeant DoomYoshi
Entertainment Coordinator
Entertainment Coordinator
 
Posts: 4072
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 9:30 pm
Location: Termina Field
Medals: 72
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (8) Clan Achievement (16)
Tournament Contribution (6) General Contribution (5)

Re: Map Complexity [Public Discussion/Review]

Postby koontz1973 on Sun Nov 04, 2012 12:28 pm

DoomYoshi wrote:@koontz

Doodle isn't simpler gameplay wise. A mistake on doodle means your game is over. A mistake on World 2.1 and you are ok. Doodle should be at the same level as Classic.


This is why I said we need someone else apart from us to decide which maps go into which category. You say doodle is game over if you make a mistake, so it is on the same level as classic, but Eurasia mini has only 26 territs. So a mistake on that is not game over then so how do you rate that one?

No matter how we rate the maps, you will never get everyone to agree on every maps rank.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class koontz1973
 
Posts: 7538
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:57 am
Medals: 117
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (2)
Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (10) General Achievement (13) Clan Achievement (5) Map Contribution (12)
Tournament Contribution (31) General Contribution (10)

Re: Map Complexity [Public Discussion/Review]

Postby ender516 on Sun Nov 04, 2012 6:21 pm

koontz1973 wrote:
DoomYoshi wrote:@koontz

Doodle isn't simpler gameplay wise. A mistake on doodle means your game is over. A mistake on World 2.1 and you are ok. Doodle should be at the same level as Classic.


This is why I said we need someone else apart from us to decide which maps go into which category. You say doodle is game over if you make a mistake, so it is on the same level as classic, but Eurasia mini has only 26 territs. So a mistake on that is not game over then so how do you rate that one?

No matter how we rate the maps, you will never get everyone to agree on every maps rank.

This is exactly why I think user ratings should be reported separately from site-calculated ratings. Those things which not up for debate, like the number of territories and the XML features used, should be easily discernible by a user browsing the database. Ratings given to maps by users can be examined by other users. Being able to see all the ratings that a user has given to various maps could help you decide whether that user thinks the same way as you do, or not, allowing you to take those ratings as gospel, or with a grain of salt.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class ender516
 
Posts: 4452
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 6:07 pm
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
Medals: 37
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1)
Fog of War Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) General Achievement (9)
Map Contribution (5) General Contribution (11)

Re: Map Complexity [Public Discussion/Review]

Postby MrBenn on Thu Nov 08, 2012 3:03 pm

Map Size should not be a large consideration of complexity - it should be a separate measure/scale.
Image
PB: 2661 | He's blue... If he were green he would die | No mod would be stupid enough to do that
User avatar
Lieutenant MrBenn
Retired Team Member
 
Posts: 7050
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 9:32 am
Location: Off Duty
Medals: 67
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (2)
General Achievement (6) Clan Achievement (1) Map Contribution (7) Tournament Contribution (2) General Contribution (15)

Re: Map Complexity [Public Discussion/Review]

Postby DoomYoshi on Thu Nov 08, 2012 3:05 pm

MrBenn wrote:Map Size should not be a large consideration of complexity - it should be a separate measure/scale.


Bingo.
show
User avatar
Sergeant DoomYoshi
Entertainment Coordinator
Entertainment Coordinator
 
Posts: 4072
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 9:30 pm
Location: Termina Field
Medals: 72
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (8) Clan Achievement (16)
Tournament Contribution (6) General Contribution (5)

Re: Map Complexity [Public Discussion/Review]

Postby MrBenn on Thu Nov 08, 2012 6:02 pm

As I said before, World 2.1 is more difficult than Doodle and Classic; not because of its larger size, but because of it's non-standard (although very intuitive) bonus/continent structure.
Image
PB: 2661 | He's blue... If he were green he would die | No mod would be stupid enough to do that
User avatar
Lieutenant MrBenn
Retired Team Member
 
Posts: 7050
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 9:32 am
Location: Off Duty
Medals: 67
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (2)
General Achievement (6) Clan Achievement (1) Map Contribution (7) Tournament Contribution (2) General Contribution (15)

Re: Map Complexity [Public Discussion/Review]

Postby Nola_Lifer on Tue Jan 08, 2013 1:51 pm

Complexity should be measured in how much time it takes to understand a map. That is including reading the legend and understand the subtleties of the map. KISS! Keep it simple silly. 3 categories. Yes our mind might understand ratings as a bigger spectrum than 3, but you want this to be user friendly and to the point.
Image
f*ck THE UNION LOUISIANA WILL RISE AGAIN
User avatar
Major Nola_Lifer
 
Posts: 816
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 4:46 pm
Location: 雪山
Medals: 61
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (4) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1)
Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (11) General Achievement (2) Clan Achievement (12) Tournament Contribution (2)
General Contribution (1)

Re: Map Complexity [Public Discussion/Review]

Postby gimil on Wed Mar 13, 2013 11:04 am

Sorry to bump an older thread but I wanted to put my 2p worth in.

With such a large variety of maps and a large player base, there is no system that will please everyone no easy way to categories all maps. If there is a desire to have maps ranked based on complexity it should probably be done on an open source platform. Give the community the tools to rank the maps on their own accord.

I think the best way to achieve this is by implementing a system identical to player ratings. After every game you can choose to rate (or change a previous rating) of a map based on how complex you thought a map was to play.

With this system you get a rating based on what the larger gaming community think about a map with little effort instead of some poor individual who has to collate and input date on the large collection of maps but also those complexity levels are decided by the whole gaming community, not just those who read topics like this in the foundry.
What do you know about map making, bitch?

natty_dread wrote:I was wrong


Top Score:2403
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class gimil
 
Posts: 8605
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 12:42 pm
Location: United Kingdom (Scotland)
Medals: 39
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (3) Fog of War Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (2) Map Contribution (7) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (5)

Re: Map Complexity [Public Discussion/Review]

Postby ender516 on Wed Mar 13, 2013 11:59 am

I quite agree. I wonder, though, if such ratings might be related to the settings used for the map. In my mind, the ultimate system would allow the user to enter a rating for the game they just played, using stars for some qualities and tags for others (and possibly text like the old feedback system). This would be recorded against all the settings for the game including the map. Then a database explorer would allow users to see the specialized ratings for a map with a given collection of settings, or the summarized ratings with some or all settings set to "don't care". It would be so nice to see the rating for a map based on, say, just 1v1 games, or just trench, or foggy doubles. Knowing how many ratings are folded into any results extracted would be useful.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class ender516
 
Posts: 4452
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 6:07 pm
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
Medals: 37
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1)
Fog of War Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) General Achievement (9)
Map Contribution (5) General Contribution (11)

Re: Map Complexity [Public Discussion/Review]

Postby gimil on Thu Mar 14, 2013 5:40 pm

ender516 wrote:I quite agree. I wonder, though, if such ratings might be related to the settings used for the map. In my mind, the ultimate system would allow the user to enter a rating for the game they just played, using stars for some qualities and tags for others (and possibly text like the old feedback system). This would be recorded against all the settings for the game including the map. Then a database explorer would allow users to see the specialized ratings for a map with a given collection of settings, or the summarized ratings with some or all settings set to "don't care". It would be so nice to see the rating for a map based on, say, just 1v1 games, or just trench, or foggy doubles. Knowing how many ratings are folded into any results extracted would be useful.


Sure, there isn't any reason (in terms of coding) that wouldn't allow such a system to exist. The thing about great websites these days is that they let users do all the work in tagging, rating and organising content. Facebook lets you tag photos of your and your friends which automatically sorts those photos to appear on a tagged persons page. eBay lets you review and rate every sale you are involved in, sorted out good sellers and buyers from the bad. Hell, wikipedia is success for doing nothing (in a manner of speaking), they let everyone else upload, edit and polish content on just about whatever you want.

Why can CC do this with its maps?
What do you know about map making, bitch?

natty_dread wrote:I was wrong


Top Score:2403
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class gimil
 
Posts: 8605
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 12:42 pm
Location: United Kingdom (Scotland)
Medals: 39
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (3) Fog of War Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (2) Map Contribution (7) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (5)

Re: Map Complexity [Public Discussion/Review]

Postby Armandolas on Thu Mar 14, 2013 7:55 pm

If we want to simplify things for beginers then we should make it simple:
Basic, advanced, Complex.
Those 3 definitions must be simple too:
Basic is the normal risk game with standard attacks and borders (classic)
Advanced are maps with winning conditions, one way assaults or something that is different the classic gameplay attack(ex.3rd crusade / conquer 4 )
Complex are maps with Starting points, Bombardments, assaults on non-connected territories or killer neuts(ex.trafalgar / monsters )

So Doodle is 100% Basic, does not matter if its more strategic than classic or not. Its gameplay is ONLY basic.Normal attacks, normal borders, easy to understand bonus, etc).
Its a classic map with the rules of risk. Why complicate things?

Then a size selector its important too , and again should be simple to decide : Small / Medium / Large

Some people tend to forget that this kind of changes are not the people that has been around CC for some time, but for the newcomers. So we should try to think this as if it was the 1st time we come to visit the site and want to find a game

Make it Simple!!!
User avatar
Brigadier Armandolas
 
Posts: 1633
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 6:32 am
Location: Lisbon
Medals: 96
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2)
Fog of War Achievement (3) Trench Warfare Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (4) Beta Map Achievement (2) Bot Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (18)
General Achievement (4) Clan Achievement (5) Challenge Achievement (1) Tournament Contribution (25)

Re: Map Complexity [Public Discussion/Review]

Postby Fazeem on Mon Aug 05, 2013 1:17 pm

I think this falls into this category but mine is a question on the matter. Could a Map based on starting points have different victory conditions for starting points on the same map? SO based on where they start they have to either completely dominate or complete different conditions based on where they hold from the beginning?
User avatar
Lieutenant Fazeem
 
Posts: 207
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 6:38 pm
Medals: 24
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (2)
Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (2)
Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)

Re: Map Complexity [Public Discussion/Review]

Postby isaiah40 on Mon Aug 05, 2013 7:24 pm

Fazeem wrote:I think this falls into this category but mine is a question on the matter. Could a Map based on starting points have different victory conditions for starting points on the same map? SO based on where they start they have to either completely dominate or complete different conditions based on where they hold from the beginning?

Yes you can. Pirates and Merchants (now abandoned) used this idea.
User avatar
Lieutenant isaiah40
 
Posts: 3964
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:14 pm
Location: To be absent from the body is to be present with Christ
Medals: 37
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (2) General Achievement (4) Map Contribution (5) General Contribution (6)

Re: Map Complexity [Public Discussion/Review]

Postby Aleena on Tue Aug 06, 2013 11:07 am

As far as classifying a game as

Simple
Standard
Complex
ect...

which is all subjective based on the comprehensive level of the player whom is trying to play that game....
I like the idea of having a filter system, and a game tag like this on the games.. (Think 3 tier tag is too small of a field)
Like the added Extreme and maybe one more...

1) Easy
2) Simple - Standard
3) Moderate
4) Complex
5) Extreme

I think basing it off the Classic Map is a good measuring tool - but the Classic Map is a Simple Map in my opinion and should be labeled so...

As for the rest - why can they not be added to the voting system at the end of the game...
You just finished a game - you have 3 players and a map to rate.

This way each map's rating will be based on an average opinion from all the players whom played it previously - and not just based on a few features or a few people's opinions. I think a game still can be classified as Easy or Simple even if it has a feature in it like Bombardment or autodeploy - it really depends on how it is used and where it is placed...

And as the community grows (if we as a community rate the maps as we play them) - the ratings will reflex the average comprehensive ability of the community and not just that of a few...
User avatar
Private 1st Class Aleena
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2013 10:55 pm
Medals: 1
Ratings Achievement (1)

Re: Map Complexity [Public Discussion/Review]

Postby ViperOverLord on Sat Oct 26, 2013 7:47 pm

I'd consider a number scale for difficulty to take away the subjective nature of the terms.

Possibilities are:

1-5 with increments of 1 (or 0.5).
1-10 with increments of 1 (or 0.5).
User avatar
Major ViperOverLord
 
Posts: 2199
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 3:19 pm
Location: California
Medals: 129
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (3)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (3) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (4) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (3)
Cross-Map Achievement (4) Beta Map Achievement (1) Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (30)
General Achievement (7) Clan Achievement (10) Challenge Achievement (1) Tournament Contribution (31)

Next

Return to Foundry Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Login