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 koontz1973 on Sun Mar 10, 2013 6:13 am

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.
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 Bruceswar on Sun Mar 10, 2013 6:36 am

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.
Highest Rank: 26 Highest Score: 3480
Image
User avatar
Major Bruceswar
 
Posts: 9600
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)

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

Postby koontz1973 on Sun Mar 10, 2013 6:43 am

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?
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 greenoaks on Sun Mar 10, 2013 8:22 am

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 doesn't.

i have made some great suggestions for additional game settings but i think settings are like maps, only the best should be added. as much as i would like one of mine to be included on this site if i had to choose just one it would not be one of mine, Conquest deployment anyone ?.

just because we can add a new setting/map/etc doesn't mean we should. the Suggestions forum develops many great ideas but they don't get automatically added to the site. the Foundry needs to exercise the same restraint/quality control.
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 koontz1973 on Sun Mar 10, 2013 10:56 am

I quite like that idea greenoaks. One of the type of maps we have very few of are the feudal search and destroy types. With that idea, we double the maps without doubling the maps. Not sure how it would work though or the amount of work it would take for normal maps or maps we already have.
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 Shape on Sun Mar 10, 2013 8:17 pm

Bruceswar wrote: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.

No kidding! O.o

-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 thenobodies80 on Mon Mar 11, 2013 5:39 am

greenoaks wrote:just because we can add a new setting/map/etc doesn't mean we should. the Suggestions forum develops many great ideas but they don't get automatically added to the site. the Foundry needs to exercise the same restraint/quality control.


In theory you have my full support here. It's a life that I think that someone should be in charge to restrict the map that can be done.
But it is a problem, because not everyone is happy to have someone who can tell him/her that his idea can't become a map, at least on CC.
A simple solution could be say: hey you're the foreman...it's up to you! Take your responsabilities!
But If you come out with a such idea, some will call you tyrant, oppressor, etc etc...

It doesn't matter if you act or speak for teh love of the foundry, when it comes that you don't allow someone else map, you appear to his eyes like the worst asshole on earth.

The point is that people should come here and post things like: "your map sucks" or "no one cares about your city, draw your map, print it and play it with your friends, but not here on CC"

Do you understand what I mean? Recently RjBeals has said to me a thing that rarely I hear (and see done) these days. I take the liberty to post it here, because it should be how the foundry should work and if it works in that way the bland and "nothing-to-add" map" wouldn't be made...

RjBeals wrote:The foundry can (and should be) a critical place


Everyone will say (as usually) that's up to the CAs to stop the bad maps...but I say that people should have the balls to speak, have a sharper tongue, say what you said in the columbia district map thread. Obviously this must be done not just for the sake of being unfriendly but to obtain better maps and moreover don't made those who are absolutely shitty ideas.

If we continue to think and speak like every idea could have its own niche to fit...then nothinig will change. Imo people and CAs should start to post only into maps that are worth or that have potential behind them and also mapmakers should wait and post maps which can really add something new to the site, even if it means do not post a new map idea for months.

But again, this is really hard to do if no one cares about what we do here.
Many appreciate what we do, but too few takes some mins to go here and post.
I have always said that it's not necessary to post a full gameplay analysis to give an input to a mapmaker.
The foundry, by its nature must work under the big law of "only the strongest/best will survive".
Useless maps should be left in a corner and die.
It's sad but true.

Said that (and to not make a totally off topic post), let me say that size doesn't matter for the quality of a map.
A map is a good map when size, theme and gameplay mesh together to create something unique and special.
If they do this, then imo we can also have 200 mid size maps! :P

Nobodies
I do NOT visit this site and I'm NOT Team CC anymore.
All PMs are autobinned.
If you need to contact me, you should already have a way to do it without using this site.
Thanks to those who helped me through the years. :)
Corporal 1st Class thenobodies80
 
Posts: 5558
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:30 am
Location: Not here
Medals: 70
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Bot Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
General Achievement (8) Map Contribution (7) Tournament Contribution (6) General Contribution (17)

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

Postby greenoaks on Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:16 am

point taken.

generally if i don't like a map i ignore the thread. in the Suggestion forum if i don't like a sug i'll say so, repeatedly (sorry qwert). i'll try to be more vocal (positive & negative) here.
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 Shape on Mon Mar 11, 2013 9:51 am

thenobodies80 wrote:In theory you have my full support here. It's a life that I think that someone should be in charge to restrict the map that can be done.
But it is a problem, because not everyone is happy to have someone who can tell him/her that his idea can't become a map, at least on CC.
A simple solution could be say: hey you're the foreman...it's up to you! Take your responsabilities!
But If you come out with a such idea, some will call you tyrant, oppressor, etc etc...

It doesn't matter if you act or speak for teh love of the foundry, when it comes that you don't allow someone else map, you appear to his eyes like the worst asshole on earth.

The point is that people should come here and post things like: "your map sucks" or "no one cares about your city, draw your map, print it and play it with your friends, but not here on CC"

Really? That seems kinda harsh. I feel like one should be able to post gently and/or give constructive criticism without the appearance of being insensitive or tyrannical. I think the discussion in the D.C. thread was fairly constructive, and I don't believe koontz came off particularly dictatorial. I was reading A How To Guide: Giving and Receiving Feedback in the Guides forum yesterday and I think point number 3 seems applicable:
3. You need thick skin. Virtually all mapmakers, at some time or another, come off as harsh. Part of the foundry rules state that mapmakers have to answer every piece of feedback, either accepting the idea presented, or refuting it logically. This means either implementing the ideas or giving valid reasons as to why the idea is not a good one for the map. The most common reason they'll come off as harsh is when someone airs an idea that doesn't fit with the mapmaker's plan for the map at all. This often gets blown out of proportion, as the person giving feedback gets very offended and says that the foundry is exactly like they heard it was ("a bunch of insensitive jerks") and never comes back. Mapmakers tend to attack the idea like they're attacking the person, but they're not. Often, the very shooting down of an idea is seen as harsh no matter how it comes out. Just remember it's part of the process.
It also seems like there's a trend here with the second bolded section, so perhaps things are more delicate than I realize. Some other pieces I found from the guides forum:
[Official] Conquer Club Mapmaker Handbook - General Mapmaking Rules
Image General Rules Image

    1. A map should be ‘inherently unique either in gameplay, location, or theme’.
    2. Gameplay features must be compatible with the game engine's currently usable XML.
    3. A map's content must be the original work of the cartographer unless consent to use copyrighted works is gained. This is your responsibility.
    4. All sound advice must be followed unless a logical rebuttal by the mapmaker or another member of the community is provided.
    5. To proceed through the foundry the community must show a reasonable amount of interest towards a map.
Image Good Foundry Conduct Image

    We know everyone has their own way of doing things. Below is our advice to you on good foundry conduct when it comes to posting map updates or posting feedback for a map you have interest in.

    Good Conduct When Posting Feedback on a Map
    If you have a map you're interested in and you intend to give it feedback, probably the best way to help the map maker when you post each piece of feedback is to remember the following three points:

    1. State what your concerns are.
    2. State why these are your concerns.
    3. Most importantly, state what you believe is a good or possible solution to your concerns.


    The closer to these three basic points you are, the better received your feedback will generally be, and the better the map will be as a result.
    A comprehensive guide to giving and receiving feedback is contained within the Foundry Feedback Guidelines.

I mean, all you have to do is point to your own rule book to show people that this is the standard set for all mapmakers, not just them, right? I mean, if the blue guys/gals are following the established rules, I don't see how a mapmaker would be justified in complaining about tyranny. Sounds like if you're reasonable and logical in your demonstrating that the map in question does not comply with point 1 under General Rules, then it shouldn't be a problem. I do think that simply saying a map sucks doesn't follow these guidelines.


Nobodies wrote:
RjBeals wrote:The foundry can (and should be) a critical place


Everyone will say (as usually) that's up to the CAs to stop the bad maps...but I say that people should have the balls to speak, have a sharper tongue, say what you said in the columbia district map thread. Obviously this must be done not just for the sake of being unfriendly but to obtain better maps and moreover don't made those who are absolutely shitty ideas.

If we continue to think and speak like every idea could have its own niche to fit...then nothinig will change. Imo people and CAs should start to post only into maps that are worth or that have potential behind them and also mapmakers should wait and post maps which can really add something new to the site, even if it means do not post a new map idea for months.

But again, this is really hard to do if no one cares about what we do here.
Many appreciate what we do, but too few takes some mins to go here and post.
I have always said that it's not necessary to post a full gameplay analysis to give an input to a mapmaker.
The foundry, by its nature must work under the big law of "only the strongest/best will survive".
Useless maps should be left in a corner and die.
It's sad but true.

Sure, it'd be cool to see this place abuzz with people, and I don't see why it shouldn't be - I think it's cool :) But you blue guys/gals do have more responsibility around these parts than the common user, as you (and correct me if I'm wrong) volunteered for a position, so I feel like you guys do have a higher calling, and if no one is willing to say that a map is bad, it should fall to the ones in charge around here. And, too, like the D.C. map, the map should be nipped in the bud before too much is invested in it.


Nobodies wrote:Said that (and to not make a totally off topic post), let me say that size doesn't matter for the quality of a map.
A map is a good map when size, theme and gameplay mesh together to create something unique and special.
If they do this, then imo we can also have 200 mid size maps! :P

Nobodies

I agree :)

I'm not as familiar with the workings around here, so many of my comments may be ill-informed, so please enlighten/correct me where necessary/possible.

-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 thenobodies80 on Mon Mar 11, 2013 11:00 am

Guidelines are under review, some info can be not totally updated.

Anyway....you don't have to take my words literally....with "your map sucks" i was trying to make clear that maybe have more sharped tongues could be a good thing.
Obviously what i posted is a bit harsh, i don't think I will post something like that in a map thread to discourage someone to continue with a map project, but in the same time I'm pretty sure that I will make clear that if a map should not have a future, then the mapmaker should be well aware of this.

In past, also before your uncle's time here, CAs were able to not support a map and a map was able to reach the live stage anyway with the support of the community. On the opposite, always during the old days, the CAs were able to support a map but have to kill it because the community didn't want it.
That's the right and correct balancing of things.

Today, if CAs do nothing, then nothing will happen. There's too much expectation to those who are supposed to be here to facilitate the foundry process.

As said I have no problem to say to someone to stop with a map project, but i can't force him without the community support (apart if the map has something against the guidelines or it is a big no no for CC). These days if a mapmaker is stubborn and patient enough, he can see its map quenched anyway.

Shape wrote:1. A map should be ‘inherently unique either in gameplay, location, or theme’.


Btw the above rule can be circumvented easily. And follow it ensure only to not have double maps, not to have quality ones. ;)

Shape wrote:But you blue guys/gals do have more responsibility around these parts than the common user, as you (and correct me if I'm wrong) volunteered for a position, so I feel like you guys do have a higher calling, and if no one is willing to say that a map is bad, it should fall to the ones in charge around here. And, too, like the D.C. map, the map should be nipped in the bud before too much is invested in it.


When and if I have to "kill" a map, i try to do into the earlier stage. This exactly to not ask to the mapmaker to put to much effeort into it for nothing. As said the problem is that in most of cases it ends that it's only like "the evil foundry foreman doesn't like my map"....when it's not in this way. If a mapmaker has potential but he is trying to develop a bad map it's my role to go there and tell that to him. I usually act like a father that has to scold one of his children. He doesn't like to do that, but it needs to do that.
Certainly in some cases I can be wrong...I'm not God and I'm well aware of this...but must be said that it's been a while that I do this "job" and I have seen many maps. I can say I have a bit of knowledge and experience on this type of things.

But now think you are the mapmaker, I (or another CA) posted "bad words" in your map topic...
Nobody else says a word about it.....then now imagine...what could you think?

"Nobodies is an idiot, he doesn't like my map, but it's just him so I continue."

I think in most of cases is human to think something like that. Now imagine the same thing, but with the support of the community on a side or on another...in any case it will be clear what the destiny of that map should be.

Now, it's true that rarely CAs take a clear and strong position for a map...but like i said in my previous post, this is because we're easily labelled as tyrant in that case...and i say this because it already happened in more than a single occasion. This is not good because the next time a CA, a person who spend his free time to help people here, will be more afraid to espress his judgment on a map.


But now I'm at work and usually I write really bad post when at work....so sorry if the above is not totally clear....I try to explain everything in a better way this evening, when back at home. ;)

Nobodies
I do NOT visit this site and I'm NOT Team CC anymore.
All PMs are autobinned.
If you need to contact me, you should already have a way to do it without using this site.
Thanks to those who helped me through the years. :)
Corporal 1st Class thenobodies80
 
Posts: 5558
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:30 am
Location: Not here
Medals: 70
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Bot Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
General Achievement (8) Map Contribution (7) Tournament Contribution (6) General Contribution (17)

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
Sergeant 1st Class Oneyed
 
Posts: 907
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
Captain Dukasaur
Head Socialite
Head Socialite
 
Posts: 11711
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: 9600
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)

Next

Return to Foundry Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron
Login