Mid sized maps. Do we really need more?

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: Mid sized maps. Do we really need more?

Postby Oneyed on Mon Mar 11, 2013 11:28 am

my reactions on some opinios here:

"But If you come out with a such idea, some will call you tyrant, oppressor, etc etc..." - as Shape said if any map does not fulfil map making rules (also after advices from community or blue guys) and blue guys will follow these rules to stop map it is fine.

"Useless maps should be left in a corner and die. It's sad but true." - yes. but where is coequality between new not genial ideas and (some) old maps. there are many old maps which do not fulfil new graphic and gameplay demands.

"the map should be nipped in the bud before too much is invested in it." - yes. better say painful truth as evade responsibility.

"Nobodies is an idiot, he doesn't like my map, but it's just him so I continue." - I can not see problem here. if any blue guy thinks that any map has not future he can discus this with some more blue guys.

Oneyed
User avatar
Captain Oneyed
 
Posts: 904
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:29 pm
Medals: 12
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1)

Re: Mid sized maps. Do we really need more?

Postby thecycle23 on Sun Mar 17, 2013 12:07 am

District Of Columbia. really, who gives a shit. some players from there might but the rest of the world doesn't. Washington DC sure.


...The District of Columbia IS Washington, D.C. That's what the D.C. stands for. It's the capital of the U.S. I'd wager more players than those that live in D.C. (like me) would care to play it.

I know in the grand scheme of the site, I'm relatively new here, but when I saw how many individual cities had maps, I was extremely disappointed D.C. wasn't one of them. It's one of the coolest cities with a great deal of history. Nothing turns me off on this site more than an overly complicated map with a paragraph or more of instructions. I know others don't agree, and that's just me, and that's totally fine.

Aside from the feudal maps (which I've really taken a liking to), I enjoy the classic-style maps much more, and I'd love a little variety in the locations available.

Anyway, that's just one man's opinion from the POV of a relative newcomer who's more interested in Classic-style maps. I really love the site, and I know you guys work really hard on it, so thanks for that.
Captain thecycle23
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 3:37 pm
Location: Washington, D.C.
Medals: 13
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (4)

Re: Mid sized maps. Do we really need more?

Postby greenoaks on Sun Mar 17, 2013 1:31 am

thecycle23 wrote:
District Of Columbia. really, who gives a shit. some players from there might but the rest of the world doesn't. Washington DC sure.


...The District of Columbia IS Washington, D.C. That's what the D.C. stands for. It's the capital of the U.S. I'd wager more players than those that live in D.C. (like me) would care to play it.

what you're missing is the rest of the world does not equate the two as being exactly identical. i live in Sydney, NSW. a map of Sydney would look a lot different to a map of NSW.

if you want a map of the US capital then call it what the world knows it as - Washington DC. the rest of world couldn't care less about the outlying suburbs that make up the rest of the district. those suburbs do not carry enough interest to have a map made about them.

the line of thought 'we do not have a map of them therefore one should be made' should not be the starting point for making a map, it should be the conclusion.
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: Mid sized maps. Do we really need more?

Postby thecycle23 on Sun Mar 17, 2013 12:39 pm

The map doesn't include the suburbs though. The one that was being proposed is just the capital -- Washington, D.C. If you're saying just to name it Washington, D.C. to avoid confusion, then I have no problem that. That's a reasonable point.

Washington, D.C., D.C., the District, District of Columbia -- all the same to me. I agree with you that the name should reflect mass appeal.
Captain thecycle23
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 3:37 pm
Location: Washington, D.C.
Medals: 13
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (4)

Re: Mid sized maps. Do we really need more?

Postby koontz1973 on Sun Mar 17, 2013 2:03 pm

thecycle23 wrote:I agree with you that the name should reflect mass appeal.

But should a map, not D.C., but any map reflect mass appeal as well, outside of its natural base?
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: Mid sized maps. Do we really need more?

Postby ender516 on Mon Mar 18, 2013 9:24 pm

thecycle23 wrote:The map doesn't include the suburbs though. The one that was being proposed is just the capital -- Washington, D.C. If you're saying just to name it Washington, D.C. to avoid confusion, then I have no problem that. That's a reasonable point.

Washington, D.C., D.C., the District, District of Columbia -- all the same to me. I agree with you that the name should reflect mass appeal.

The District of Columbia has had a single municipal government since some time after the American Civil War. So the city of Washington has the same boundaries as the District of Columbia. The suburbs of that city actually lie in the surrounding states of Maryland and Virginia.
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: Mid sized maps. Do we really need more?

Postby Dukasaur on Sun Mar 31, 2013 3:30 am

Bruceswar wrote:
koontz1973 wrote:Brucewar, so if you take out Arms race as you suggest from the stats, it goes even worse for mid sized games. That is one less in the top 10.

Medal hunting is just that, and I would dispute that it is a foundry problem. People would medal hunt on 10 maps or 10 thousand maps.



If someone is medal hunting on Classic, that is far less worse than someone who is medal hunting on Waterloo. The former is a map people will find easy to understand, where as Waterloo is hard to understand for the normal user who is new. The more maps and settings, the more you have the more crappy maps / settings you will have on the first page of join a game. Look at say 2007. There was 59 maps when I joined. Most all were simple, yet for your average player who just clicked on join a game, there was usually an easy map to play on the first page. There were no nukes, trench and manual coupled with freestyle on Baseball. It was much easier to find a game.

koontz1973 wrote:So is that a map problem or a settings problem? I agree that now we have a lot of settings and more are sure to come over time. Like trench and nukes when they came out, lots of games got made with those settings, on certain maps. We have medal hunters and always will whilst we have medals, but how does that go for or against mid range maps?

It's neither a map problem nor a settings problem. It's a User Interface problem. The three basic access routes for games -- Join a Game, Start a Game, and Game Finder -- need to be redesigned.

Join a Game needs to show basic games and basic maps as the default, so that users not savvy enough to select their own settings aren't lured into playing Freestyle Foggy Quads on All Your Base or whatever other idiotic farming combinations are available. All possibilities should be available through Join a Game, but only if the user knowingly and willingly pushes an "Advanced Options" button or something else that makes him fully aware he's heading into Illuminati territory.

Start a Game and Game Finder, in addition to all the options they now have, need most urgently a map sorting system, where maps can be subdivided into their basic categories, not only size but things like one-way portals and fixed starting positions.

Really, until the User Interface is more intelligently designed, everything else is just a matter of beating yourself over the head.
User avatar
Lieutenant Dukasaur
Head Socialite
Head Socialite
 
Posts: 11494
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: Mid sized maps. Do we really need more?

Postby ender516 on Sun Mar 31, 2013 1:45 pm

Dukasaur wrote:
Bruceswar wrote:
koontz1973 wrote:Brucewar, so if you take out Arms race as you suggest from the stats, it goes even worse for mid sized games. That is one less in the top 10.

Medal hunting is just that, and I would dispute that it is a foundry problem. People would medal hunt on 10 maps or 10 thousand maps.



If someone is medal hunting on Classic, that is far less worse than someone who is medal hunting on Waterloo. The former is a map people will find easy to understand, where as Waterloo is hard to understand for the normal user who is new. The more maps and settings, the more you have the more crappy maps / settings you will have on the first page of join a game. Look at say 2007. There was 59 maps when I joined. Most all were simple, yet for your average player who just clicked on join a game, there was usually an easy map to play on the first page. There were no nukes, trench and manual coupled with freestyle on Baseball. It was much easier to find a game.

koontz1973 wrote:So is that a map problem or a settings problem? I agree that now we have a lot of settings and more are sure to come over time. Like trench and nukes when they came out, lots of games got made with those settings, on certain maps. We have medal hunters and always will whilst we have medals, but how does that go for or against mid range maps?

It's neither a map problem nor a settings problem. It's a User Interface problem. The three basic access routes for games -- Join a Game, Start a Game, and Game Finder -- need to be redesigned.

Join a Game needs to show basic games and basic maps as the default, so that users not savvy enough to select their own settings aren't lured into playing Freestyle Foggy Quads on All Your Base or whatever other idiotic farming combinations are available. All possibilities should be available through Join a Game, but only if the user knowingly and willingly pushes an "Advanced Options" button or something else that makes him fully aware he's heading into Illuminati territory.

Start a Game and Game Finder, in addition to all the options they now have, need most urgently a map sorting system, where maps can be subdivided into their basic categories, not only size but things like one-way portals and fixed starting positions.

Really, until the User Interface is more intelligently designed, everything else is just a matter of beating yourself over the head.

+1 (I don't usually just say that, but Duke has nailed it.)
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: Mid sized maps. Do we really need more?

Postby koontz1973 on Mon Apr 01, 2013 1:32 am

So we get an overhaul of the join a game screens so some maps are removed when looking. So you ask for a large map with no complex game play, you might get 10 maps. But do the same for mid sized maps you could end up with a list of 70+ maps. It is a smaller list than 230 maps, but still a large list and larger than small, large and X-large map lists.
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: Mid sized maps. Do we really need more?

Postby P4Ssoa on Mon Apr 01, 2013 3:43 am

I don't think size matters. (You know what I mean guys... no need to make a joke about it! ;-) )
As long as it is a fun map, good setup of regions, well thought out, etc... I think it is fun to play.

I agree, you do not need to make a map of every single city, country,... just with regions connecting each other, region bonusses and no single special twist. But if you can make a well thought out map, does it matter if it has 20, 30 50 or 1000 regions?!
I honestly think it is wrong to say that we don't need more maps of X amount of regions, just because most maps have that amount of regions already.

Imo region count doesn't say anything about a map. It's the concept that counts.
And maybe some concepts are not too attractive to the general public,... it may be a brilliant concept nonetheless.
Example: Trafalgar! This map is not easy and not attractive to the general public because of it's complexity, but... it is an awesome well thought out map.

Another question:
Why order maps on region count? Why not on play style?

Classic maps:
  • Classic
  • world 2.1
  • France
  • British Islands
Classic maps with a twist:
  • England
  • California
  • Vancouver
  • NYC
Maps with starting points:
  • Clandemonium
  • Feudal war
  • Woodboro
  • Jamaica
Special maps:
  • Poker club
  • Oasis
  • Monsters
  • Route 66
Complex maps:
  • Stalingrad
  • Trafalgar
  • Das Schloss
  • Poison Rome

If you sort maps on style, you would get a better overview on what you want more. Though I think it's often the map developer's choice, when it comes to the kind of new map that will be created. We, as the community can only suggest what kind of maps we want more and what kind of maps we are not interested in anymore.

I for one am not excited when I hear about a new map in the classic style. Although this map will often be played more then a special or complex map, I do get more excited when I see a complex or special map. They are often more creative and strategically based.
User avatar
Major P4Ssoa
 
Posts: 179
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 2:35 pm
Medals: 43
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (2)
Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (7) General Achievement (3) Clan Achievement (1)
Tournament Contribution (1)

Re: Mid sized maps. Do we really need more?

Postby Bruceswar on Thu Jun 20, 2013 12:37 am

Dukasaur wrote:
Bruceswar wrote:
koontz1973 wrote:Brucewar, so if you take out Arms race as you suggest from the stats, it goes even worse for mid sized games. That is one less in the top 10.

Medal hunting is just that, and I would dispute that it is a foundry problem. People would medal hunt on 10 maps or 10 thousand maps.



If someone is medal hunting on Classic, that is far less worse than someone who is medal hunting on Waterloo. The former is a map people will find easy to understand, where as Waterloo is hard to understand for the normal user who is new. The more maps and settings, the more you have the more crappy maps / settings you will have on the first page of join a game. Look at say 2007. There was 59 maps when I joined. Most all were simple, yet for your average player who just clicked on join a game, there was usually an easy map to play on the first page. There were no nukes, trench and manual coupled with freestyle on Baseball. It was much easier to find a game.

koontz1973 wrote:So is that a map problem or a settings problem? I agree that now we have a lot of settings and more are sure to come over time. Like trench and nukes when they came out, lots of games got made with those settings, on certain maps. We have medal hunters and always will whilst we have medals, but how does that go for or against mid range maps?

It's neither a map problem nor a settings problem. It's a User Interface problem. The three basic access routes for games -- Join a Game, Start a Game, and Game Finder -- need to be redesigned.

Join a Game needs to show basic games and basic maps as the default, so that users not savvy enough to select their own settings aren't lured into playing Freestyle Foggy Quads on All Your Base or whatever other idiotic farming combinations are available. All possibilities should be available through Join a Game, but only if the user knowingly and willingly pushes an "Advanced Options" button or something else that makes him fully aware he's heading into Illuminati territory.

Start a Game and Game Finder, in addition to all the options they now have, need most urgently a map sorting system, where maps can be subdivided into their basic categories, not only size but things like one-way portals and fixed starting positions.

Really, until the User Interface is more intelligently designed, everything else is just a matter of beating yourself over the head.



This is true and +1 We now have a new game finder (Join a game) page which has helped some, but limiting maps is not the answer. I know many of you like the "complex" maps but your average CC player does not. As seen by games that no longer can be played with the switch. That just tells me nobody really likes some of these maps that come out. The masses love simple maps so that is what should be coming out of the foundry more so than some complex map to which 100 people are going to love and not much past that.

Image

This is the well known bell curve, and the top would be classic and it would work down from there. Most all of the most played maps are simple, standard type maps. Like it or not that is what most people are playing. They are not playing All your bases, Baseball, Trafgar, and other odd maps.


If you translate this into a retail store. What do you stock? What sells the most? or the odd products for when that one person comes looking for them? Owning a business, I can tell you that you stock way more of the common goods than the odd ball items. While an odd ball map / item might attract the hardcore person, you are working on keeping the fringe players around. That is CC's bread and butter. CC needs to expand its simple maps by 10 fold and put a stop to crazy maps, in which very few people like. While many of them are great ideas, they just are not main stream. Main stream should rule the roost.

I am not saying I do not like map X or Y, but as a whole CC is fighting an uphill battle, and thus needs all the help it can get.


Mini Rant over.

P.S. As a Hardcore player I do appreciate the odd maps at times, but I also love a simple clean map. If I were a new player I likely would get turned off by so many odd maps on the join a game page. Lucky for me I am not and when I was I figured out how to search quick for what I wanted.
Highest Rank: 26 Highest Score: 3480
Image
User avatar
Major Bruceswar
 
Posts: 9598
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2007 12:36 am
Location: Cow Pastures
Medals: 142
Monthly Leader Bronze (1) Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (4) Triples Achievement (4) Quadruples Achievement (4)
Terminator Achievement (3) Assassin Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (4) Polymorphic Achievement (1)
Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (4) Teammate Achievement (3)
Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Beta Map Achievement (1) Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (14) General Achievement (14) Clan Achievement (19) Training Achievement (6) Map Contribution (2)

Previous

Return to Foundry Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Login