Conquer Club

TheMissionary is a huge fan of Crossword and Chinese Checkers. I don't think he needs counselling, but you could ask him.

While talking about tagging/ranking maps based on complexity why not do the same for popularly?

Let people rate a map between 1-5 and rank maps based on how highly people review in and how many games are played on it monthly. From this you take say, your top 50 maps and present then on the game finder screen with thumbnails (anyone old enough to remember the old CC game finder that showed thumbnails for each map?). All other maps could be available through a drop down list.

By giving the top 50 a premium view on the game finder you encourage map makers to be a little more competitive in trying to make better maps. In order to enter the top 50 you have to make a map that is both played regularly and has a high rating.

EDIT: This should go some way to minimse the to many maps concern. You still have over 200 maps. But only the very best are shown off on the game finder. The rest are stored away in a boring list for someone to find and play on.

Why don't we get a list of some of the maps we are considering deleting and vote on which ones to keep and toss?

nicestash wrote:Why don't we get a list of some of the maps we are considering deleting and vote on which ones to keep and toss?

Because such a system would be based on the arbitrary opinion of a small number of foundry goers. Which doesn't really fairly represent the 15k active players on the scoreboard.

gimil wrote:While talking about tagging/ranking maps based on complexity why not do the same for popularly?

Let people rate a map between 1-5 and rank maps based on how highly people review in and how many games are played on it monthly. From this you take say, your top 50 maps and present then on the game finder screen with thumbnails (anyone old enough to remember the old CC game finder that showed thumbnails for each map?). All other maps could be available through a drop down list.

By giving the top 50 a premium view on the game finder you encourage map makers to be a little more competitive in trying to make better maps. In order to enter the top 50 you have to make a map that is both played regularly and has a high rating.

EDIT: This should go some way to minimse the to many maps concern. You still have over 200 maps. But only the very best are shown off on the game finder. The rest are stored away in a boring list for someone to find and play on.

This is a great idea!! It would certainly incentivize map makers to make the best possible maps, which we should be doing already, and eliminate the need to discuss too many maps, as gimil pointed out.

gimil wrote:

nicestash wrote:Why don't we get a list of some of the maps we are considering deleting and vote on which ones to keep and toss?

Because if the proper system is put in place there is no need to remove any maps. And the more I think about it, the more I think removing a map is extremely disrespectful to the map maker, whether still here or not. No matter what the time frame was, somebody worked extremely hard on that map, and as pointed out even what most would consider terrible maps have their fans.

So fix what's broken, the system for displaying and ranking maps, instead of pointing fingers at the foundry system and the map makers.

Because such a system would be based on the arbitrary opinion of a small number of foundry goers. Which doesn't really fairly represent the 15k active players on the scoreboard.

A related discussion is also going on here: viewtopic.php?f=127&t=180569&view=unread#p4096026 .

With what Armandolas was saying about graphics and gameplay and things like that...

Maybe it's a good idea to try a new way to make maps. There should be a gameplay team that works on the gameplay aspects of maps, people like cairns and Kab can work very well there. A graphics sections where only a few people get to be located, so that we can be saved from some of the atrociousness of some maps... I think we need to remember that it's ok to tell people no if they don't have the skill to make a map look good.

i hate all the maps that are average size and have no special gameplay, if were cutting maps start there.

I like drug war and has different game play than other maps making it more fun!

chapcrap wrote:With what Armandolas was saying about graphics and gameplay and things like that...

Maybe it's a good idea to try a new way to make maps. There should be a gameplay team that works on the gameplay aspects of maps, people like cairns and Kab can work very well there. A graphics sections where only a few people get to be located, so that we can be saved from some of the atrociousness of some maps... I think we need to remember that it's ok to tell people no if they don't have the skill to make a map look good.

This is an interesting idea, but I fear that it may become an artificial process if done that way.

BMO

rdsrds2120 wrote:

chapcrap wrote:With what Armandolas was saying about graphics and gameplay and things like that...

Maybe it's a good idea to try a new way to make maps. There should be a gameplay team that works on the gameplay aspects of maps, people like cairns and Kab can work very well there. A graphics sections where only a few people get to be located, so that we can be saved from some of the atrociousness of some maps... I think we need to remember that it's ok to tell people no if they don't have the skill to make a map look good.

This is an interesting idea, but I fear that it may become an artificial process if done that way.

BMO

that's the way Suggestions work and the site only gets the best.

greenoaks wrote:

rdsrds2120 wrote:

chapcrap wrote:With what Armandolas was saying about graphics and gameplay and things like that...

Maybe it's a good idea to try a new way to make maps. There should be a gameplay team that works on the gameplay aspects of maps, people like cairns and Kab can work very well there. A graphics sections where only a few people get to be located, so that we can be saved from some of the atrociousness of some maps... I think we need to remember that it's ok to tell people no if they don't have the skill to make a map look good.

This is an interesting idea, but I fear that it may become an artificial process if done that way.

BMO

that's the way Suggestions work and the site only gets the best.

While this is true, a Suggestion doesn't take as much long term work on the user's end. Many suggestions can be created and abandoned by a user and still do well, whereas a map takes full effort through the entire process.

BMO

rdsrds2120 wrote:

greenoaks wrote:

rdsrds2120 wrote:

chapcrap wrote:With what Armandolas was saying about graphics and gameplay and things like that...

Maybe it's a good idea to try a new way to make maps. There should be a gameplay team that works on the gameplay aspects of maps, people like cairns and Kab can work very well there. A graphics sections where only a few people get to be located, so that we can be saved from some of the atrociousness of some maps... I think we need to remember that it's ok to tell people no if they don't have the skill to make a map look good.

This is an interesting idea, but I fear that it may become an artificial process if done that way.

BMO

that's the way Suggestions work and the site only gets the best.

While this is true, a Suggestion doesn't take as much long term work on the user's end. Many suggestions can be created and abandoned by a user and still do well, whereas a map takes full effort through the entire process.

BMO

if effort from the user is what it takes i would be the cairnswk of suggs