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.

Mid sized maps. Do we really need more?

Postby koontz1973 on Sat Mar 09, 2013 11:56 am

show: Less than 35 regions

show: 35-65 region count

show: 66-99 region maps

show: +100 regions maps

23 maps with 34 or less regions.
135 maps with 35-65 region count.
50 maps with66-99 regions count.
21maps with 100+ regions.
Thanks to thenobodies80 for compiling this list for us here.

Been having an interesting discussion with a couple of others over maps and with me asking for something extra to be added to their maps. For goodness sake, do we really need to add to the huge list of mid sized maps that we already have (over half the maps with 30 region count). Yes, but can we stop the endless amount of maps that come out the same. It has got to the point that all we make is Model T Fords.
Image You can have the map as long as it can be done plain. No wonder no one comes here. If I want plain, I would play one of the other 135 maps like it. You have to give me a reason to play yours. That is all I ask for, a reason. And just incase anyone spots that I have 3 maps in that list of mid sized maps (highlighted), no one can say they are normal. Jakarta is the most normal map I have ever done and even that has a small twist to it. :P
A twist can be anything from:
  • trapped territs
  • auto deploys
  • decays
  • killer neutrals
  • played with reinforcements
All of these are very easy to explain and code. But all of these can bring something to a map to set it apart from the rest. Someone asked recently, why play Jakarta over Eurasia mini? The answer is very simple. Eurasia Mini is in the second smallest category (less than 35 regions).

So I ask this:
    Do we need more maps within the 35-65 region count that have no twists?
Sergeant 1st Class koontz1973
Cartography Assistant
Cartography Assistant
 
Posts: 7538
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:57 am
Medals: 116
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 (9)

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

Postby ManBungalow on Sat Mar 09, 2013 3:17 pm

Nice list koontz.

I'd like to point out firstly that not all maps in the 35-65 bracket (for example) are the same. Many are standard, others are not.

eg. Conquer 4, Woodboro, 13 Colonies, Poker Club, Crossword are in that category
The net 'utility' of games on those maps is debatable, but not totally dependent on the number of regions.

I guess there's an overall bell curve for number of regions on a map. We have some with few regions, and some with lots, but mostly several sometimes.

Please, ladies and gentlemen, a minute of your time to look at this essential graph:

Image

And so, I would like to suggest releasing more interesting maps. The number of regions may well be a contributing factor to how interesting a map is in context, but not the only variable.
Image
User avatar
Colonel ManBungalow
 
Posts: 3248
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: Mid sized maps. Do we really need more?

Postby Shape on Sat Mar 09, 2013 7:17 pm

I like ManBungalow's analysis.

-Shape
User avatar
Private 1st Class Shape
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 4:46 am
Location: World 1-1

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

Postby koontz1973 on Sun Mar 10, 2013 12:11 am

ManBungalow wrote:I'd like to point out firstly that not all maps in the 35-65 bracket (for example) are the same. Many are standard, others are not.

True, but the majority of those maps are normal classic play.
ManBungalow wrote:And so, I would like to suggest releasing more interesting maps.

That is all I have asked for. Something interesting. If you try to make a map within the largest group, make it so people will play it.
Shape wrote:I like ManBungalow's analysis.

-Shape

So do I.
Sergeant 1st Class koontz1973
Cartography Assistant
Cartography Assistant
 
Posts: 7538
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:57 am
Medals: 116
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 (9)

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

Postby Seamus76 on Sun Mar 10, 2013 1:12 am

Shape wrote:I like ManBungalow's analysis. -Shape

Agree.

I'd also like to see how the number of current games matches up to that list. I have a hunch that the vast majority of games are being played on maps within that mid-range, or what might be considered more standard.

I think people who have been on the site for a period of time are bored with the current maps, and are looking for some thing new, but "standard". Koontz you say "If I want plain, I would play one of the other 135 maps like it.", but if that theory were true then Three Kingdoms of China won't get any play because it doesn't have anything special. No auto-deploy, no killer neutrals, nothing at all really. But personally I think that map is going to be pretty popular when it comes out, and to me it's because of the simplicity of the gameplay.

You said, "So I ask this: Do we need more maps within the 35-65 region count that have no twists?" And I say yes, why not. As long as there are people willing to make maps, you'll always have some who make standard, others more complicated, and still other both. And as long as there are people on the site they will always want something new, and the vast majority of them will want something standard.
ImageImageImage
User avatar
Captain Seamus76
Media Volunteer
Media Volunteer
 
Posts: 1417
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:41 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Medals: 97
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1)
Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (2) Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3)
Tournament Achievement (29) Clan Achievement (28) Map Contribution (1) Tournament Contribution (7) General Contribution (2)

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

Postby DoomYoshi on Sun Mar 10, 2013 1:45 am

I think we need all areas of the globe covered at a variety of scales. I would support more regular maps that are a)an area of the globe that is not well covered or b) a historical battle.

Especially b) I think we are a bit lacking in historical battles.
show
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class DoomYoshi
Entertainment Contributor
Entertainment Contributor
 
Posts: 3456
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 9:30 pm
Location: Termina Field
Medals: 70
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 (4) General Contribution (5)

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

Postby Shape on Sun Mar 10, 2013 2:23 am

I think, too, that countries offer much more than, say, cities or counties (assuming standard nothing-special gameplay), since countries offer more interesting shapes (ha) and are more recognizable to a wider audience. Cities and counties are more specified and offer less in geographic familiarity and tend to have more geometric shapes than natural, more unique shapes.

-Shape
User avatar
Private 1st Class Shape
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 4:46 am
Location: World 1-1

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

Postby koontz1973 on Sun Mar 10, 2013 2:31 am

Seamus76 wrote:I'd also like to see how the number of current games matches up to that list. I have a hunch that the vast majority of games are being played on maps within that mid-range, or what might be considered more standard.

If the majority of maps are made in this size, the majority of games would also be played on this size. But look at some others stats. Most popular map on the site according to the 200 map celebration is World 2.1. This is classic play but outside of the mid range maps. 2 of the most played maps on the site are Doodle Earth and Luxembourg. Both maps are in the small range. Last years maps awards. The one map that cleaned up was nattys Eurasia pack. The small one and the large one both won lots and neither is in the mid range. So whilst most games may be made at this size, that can be explained as having the most maps.

Following are some lists. The first one is a list from Coleman 2 years ago. Using this to compare this to the updated list from this year. It is the top ten maps against games made.
  • Classic
  • Doodle Earth
  • Luxembourg
  • Feudal War
  • Arms Race!
  • World 2.1
  • Peloponnesian War
  • British Isles
  • New World
  • Age Of Realms 2: Magic
Classic map will always skew results as it is the one map we all look for and the one most played. But only two maps from this top 10 are in the mid range. Arms Race and British Isles. Only British Isles is classic style gameplay and has the twist of the one way attacks. Arms race can in no way be classed as normal classic style play.
Updated list by nobodies.
  • Classic
  • Doodle Earth
  • Feudal War
  • World 2.1
  • Luxembourg
  • British Isles
  • Arms Race!
  • USA
  • Age Of Realms 1
  • Age Of Realms 2
As you can see, not a lot of movement over the two years. What was popular two years ago is popular now. Only USA seems to of made a huge leap from 24th to 8th (why I have no idea). The two casualties from the lists are Peloponnesian War (13th) and New World(11th). So now the only popular map that is mid ranged and plain is USA. The only two losses are large maps and they have been replaced by USA and another large map (Age Of Realms 1).
Last list I promise and this is the most interesting. This list is made from games per day, not total games.
  • Classic
  • Doodle Earth
  • Feudal War
  • Luxembourg
  • World 2.1
  • Arms Race!
  • British Isles
  • Age Of Realms 1
  • Age Of Realms 2
  • Peloponnesian War
Surprise, no USA, no plain maps, and only two mid ranged maps.
Seamus76 wrote:but if that theory were true then Three Kingdoms of China won't get any play because it doesn't have anything special.

Three kingdoms has a couple of twists to it. The auto deploys on the capitals and the collection bonus for the cities. But I guarantee, if 3 kingdoms had been made back in 2008 when gimil had it, we had less than 100 maps, it would be a more popular map than it would be today. Today, your map will have to go up against over double the amount of maps. So yes, it will get less games played on it. I very much doubt anyone can deny that.
Seamus76 wrote:You said, "So I ask this: Do we need more maps within the 35-65 region count that have no twists?" And I say yes, why not. As long as there are people willing to make maps, you'll always have some who make standard, others more complicated, and still other both. And as long as there are people on the site they will always want something new, and the vast majority of them will want something standard.

Right now and this is personal opinion, the more we produce, the more we hurt ourselves. If every map coming out of the foundry is the same, why would anyone want to play it or even comment on it? People keep complaining that no one comes here any more, is it any wonder. Now go to the main foundry and look at the threads.
A couple of interesting things to look at:
Ethopia - 6 pages of comments - 9 months in the foundry
3 Kingdoms of China - 11 pages of comments - 4 months in the foundry.
Which one do you think has more community support and will get played more?
USA2.1 or Miami from isaiah. One large, one mid sized. Take a guess on what you think will be the more popular map?

Personally, I have nothing against classic maps, look at the ones I play.
Sergeant 1st Class koontz1973
Cartography Assistant
Cartography Assistant
 
Posts: 7538
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:57 am
Medals: 116
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 (9)

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

Postby koontz1973 on Sun Mar 10, 2013 2:36 am

DoomYoshi wrote:I think we need all areas of the globe covered at a variety of scales. I would support more regular maps that are a)an area of the globe that is not well covered or b) a historical battle.

Especially b) I think we are a bit lacking in historical battles.

Problem with (a) is the lazy man approach. Pick a country, split it up and do some nice graphics. We can get a million maps like this very quickly. But would you want to play a million maps like this?
(b) on the other hand, only Oneyed has done this over the last year. This is a new map maker that has a passion for maps and history. Not only that, he wants to make his maps the best experience on the site.
Sergeant 1st Class koontz1973
Cartography Assistant
Cartography Assistant
 
Posts: 7538
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:57 am
Medals: 116
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 (9)

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

Postby Shape on Sun Mar 10, 2013 3:00 am

koontz1973 wrote:
DoomYoshi wrote:I think we need all areas of the globe covered at a variety of scales. I would support more regular maps that are a)an area of the globe that is not well covered or b) a historical battle.

Especially b) I think we are a bit lacking in historical battles.

Problem with (a) is the lazy man approach. Pick a country, split it up and do some nice graphics. We can get a million maps like this very quickly. But would you want to play a million maps like this?

Sure, I would. I think different classic style maps can offer different things. Again, like I said above, countries specifically can offer more interesting gameplay structure. Thyseneal (though not a country - is it based off of a book or something? I'm not well read with regards to popular novels, haha) has a very neat layout - certainly you're going to play that differently from, say, Classic. I'm playing Madagascar, American Civil War, and Eurasia Mini, and each, though classic-style in gameplay (at least for the most part), offers a little something different.

-Shape
User avatar
Private 1st Class Shape
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 4:46 am
Location: World 1-1

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

Postby greenoaks on Sun Mar 10, 2013 3:22 am

forget the mid-sized debate. we don't need any more maps period. if the foundry is going to produce more maps they need to be something special.

District Of Columbia. really, who gives a shit. some players from there might but the rest of the world doesn't. Washington DC sure. that is a place we know from literature and movies. it is a global city. it has globally recognised buildings & institutions. those elements could be worked into an interesting map of any size.

but to say 'hey, we don't have one of this region so lets make one' is a problem. we end up with bland maps covering bland regions that don't interest the majority of us.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class greenoaks
Tech Contributor
Tech Contributor
 
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 koontz1973 on Sun Mar 10, 2013 3:38 am

greenoaks wrote:if the foundry is going to produce more maps they need to be something special.

Well said. =D>
greenoaks 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. that is a place we know from literature and movies. it is a global city. it has globally recognised buildings & institutions. those elements could be worked into an interesting map of any size.

but to say 'hey, we don't have one of this region so lets make one' is a problem. we end up with bland maps covering bland regions that don't interest the majority of us.

=D> =D> =D> =D> =D>
Sergeant 1st Class koontz1973
Cartography Assistant
Cartography Assistant
 
Posts: 7538
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:57 am
Medals: 116
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 (9)

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

Postby koontz1973 on Sun Mar 10, 2013 4:42 am

Shape wrote:I'm playing Madagascar, American Civil War, and Eurasia Mini, and each, though classic-style in gameplay (at least for the most part), offers a little something different.

-Shape

Yep, and only one is in the mid range. 2 out of your 3 games are on small maps. I know that this is such a small sample, but lets take it as it is. If two thirds of your games are played on small maps, would you not want more maps at that size to play?
Sergeant 1st Class koontz1973
Cartography Assistant
Cartography Assistant
 
Posts: 7538
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:57 am
Medals: 116
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 (9)

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

Postby Shape on Sun Mar 10, 2013 4:54 am

koontz1973 wrote:
Shape wrote:I'm playing Madagascar, American Civil War, and Eurasia Mini, and each, though classic-style in gameplay (at least for the most part), offers a little something different.

-Shape

Yep, and only one is in the mid range. 2 out of your 3 games are on small maps. I know that this is such a small sample, but lets take it as it is. If two thirds of your games are played on small maps, would you not want more maps at that size to play?

Sure, I think that there's more of a need for smaller maps than mid-sized maps, but all the same, I still think there's room for both. I agree that new maps should be unique, but it doesn't necessarily have to be in additional gameplay mechanics. I think new layouts, as I mentioned, can contribute to a unique experience so long as the region mapped is reasonably well-known to the CC populace (again, I think there is room for more countries, not so much cities or counties or other smaller divisions).

-Shape
User avatar
Private 1st Class Shape
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 4:46 am
Location: World 1-1

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

Postby Bruceswar on Sun Mar 10, 2013 5:14 am

koontz1973 wrote:
Seamus76 wrote:I'd also like to see how the number of current games matches up to that list. I have a hunch that the vast majority of games are being played on maps within that mid-range, or what might be considered more standard.

If the majority of maps are made in this size, the majority of games would also be played on this size. But look at some others stats. Most popular map on the site according to the 200 map celebration is World 2.1. This is classic play but outside of the mid range maps. 2 of the most played maps on the site are Doodle Earth and Luxembourg. Both maps are in the small range. Last years maps awards. The one map that cleaned up was nattys Eurasia pack. The small one and the large one both won lots and neither is in the mid range. So whilst most games may be made at this size, that can be explained as having the most maps.

Following are some lists. The first one is a list from Coleman 2 years ago. Using this to compare this to the updated list from this year. It is the top ten maps against games made.
  • Classic
  • Doodle Earth
  • Luxembourg
  • Feudal War
  • Arms Race!
  • World 2.1
  • Peloponnesian War
  • British Isles
  • New World
  • Age Of Realms 2: Magic
Classic map will always skew results as it is the one map we all look for and the one most played. But only two maps from this top 10 are in the mid range. Arms Race and British Isles. Only British Isles is classic style gameplay and has the twist of the one way attacks. Arms race can in no way be classed as normal classic style play.
Updated list by nobodies.
  • Classic
  • Doodle Earth
  • Feudal War
  • World 2.1
  • Luxembourg
  • British Isles
  • Arms Race!
  • USA
  • Age Of Realms 1
  • Age Of Realms 2
As you can see, not a lot of movement over the two years. What was popular two years ago is popular now. Only USA seems to of made a huge leap from 24th to 8th (why I have no idea). The two casualties from the lists are Peloponnesian War (13th) and New World(11th). So now the only popular map that is mid ranged and plain is USA. The only two losses are large maps and they have been replaced by USA and another large map (Age Of Realms 1).
Last list I promise and this is the most interesting. This list is made from games per day, not total games.
  • Classic
  • Doodle Earth
  • Feudal War
  • Luxembourg
  • World 2.1
  • Arms Race!
  • British Isles
  • Age Of Realms 1
  • Age Of Realms 2
  • Peloponnesian War
Surprise, no USA, no plain maps, and only two mid ranged maps.
Seamus76 wrote:but if that theory were true then Three Kingdoms of China won't get any play because it doesn't have anything special.

Three kingdoms has a couple of twists to it. The auto deploys on the capitals and the collection bonus for the cities. But I guarantee, if 3 kingdoms had been made back in 2008 when gimil had it, we had less than 100 maps, it would be a more popular map than it would be today. Today, your map will have to go up against over double the amount of maps. So yes, it will get less games played on it. I very much doubt anyone can deny that.
Seamus76 wrote:You said, "So I ask this: Do we need more maps within the 35-65 region count that have no twists?" And I say yes, why not. As long as there are people willing to make maps, you'll always have some who make standard, others more complicated, and still other both. And as long as there are people on the site they will always want something new, and the vast majority of them will want something standard.

Right now and this is personal opinion, the more we produce, the more we hurt ourselves. If every map coming out of the foundry is the same, why would anyone want to play it or even comment on it? People keep complaining that no one comes here any more, is it any wonder. Now go to the main foundry and look at the threads.
A couple of interesting things to look at:
Ethopia - 6 pages of comments - 9 months in the foundry
3 Kingdoms of China - 11 pages of comments - 4 months in the foundry.
Which one do you think has more community support and will get played more?
USA2.1 or Miami from isaiah. One large, one mid sized. Take a guess on what you think will be the more popular map?

Personally, I have nothing against classic maps, look at the ones I play.



These stats are a bit skewed... Take Arms race for example. HighlanderAttack loves that map. Alone he has played 6137 results on 62 pages: 6137! That is more games than 99% of CC has ever played and he has done this all on one map. Vs the total of 249340 results on 2494 pages: So one player has played 2.5% of all the games on this map. That means the people who love these maps tend to play more than the person who like say Hong Kong, since many maps are similar and yet there is only one arms race.

On a personal level. AOR 1 is a good map for collecting medals. I do not like the map yet... I have played the map 107 times and that will go up again when I soon medal hunt some more.


One of CC's largest problems is now that medals combined with maps / settings are causing people to play maps and settings they never would have before. Thus a newer player finds sooo many shit type of games open for play, where as before medals people would just play what they liked and you saw many more normal types of games.

I seriously joined a speed game with these settings just the other day...
Standard
Manual
Freestyle Cuban Missile Crisis (Random)
Cuban Missile Crisis Nuclear
Adjacent


I would have never in a million years joined that game if I was not medal hunting and I highly doubt it would be put up if not.

Is this a foundry problem? In part, but this is also a medal issue as well. It is safe to say the average player does not care about medals in the since they need all gold or all platinum. Those of us crazy to play enough games will get them by default and with some medal hunting the rest can be had. Most people just wanna play a game on map they know and like. CC loses more players to the fact that people are medal hunting and make crappy games so they get crappy games on the join a game page. Just one of the many issues CC faces.
Trench
Highest Rank: 26 Highest Score: 3480
Image
User avatar
Major Bruceswar
 
Posts: 9508
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2007 12:36 am
Location: Cow Pastures
Medals: 140
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 (18) Training Achievement (6) Map Contribution (1)

Next

Return to Foundry Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Login