Map Complexity [Public Discussion/Review]

[Nola_Lifer]

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.

[gimil]

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.

[ender516]

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.

[gimil]

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?

[Armandolas]

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!!!