proposal: spreading foundry info to the world

[mibi]

To a certain extent the foundry people are like minded. Those who disagree with the foundry people don't last long be fore they give up on the foundry. The foundry mindset is differnt than the general population mindset...

the biggest arguments and disagreements are always between foundry regulars so i am not to sure of this like mindedness you speak of.

[Coleman]

like the qwert wars or the mibi Me vs gimil DiM that happened a while back.

DiM and Keyogi.
Me and Hulmey.

Most of these resolve though. Or at least we pretend they do and silently hate each other.

[Herakilla]

why dont you submit a suggestion to make a seperate link somewhere that goes directly to the map foundry? like a "maps in production" or "comment on upcoming maps" r something

[Aerial Attack]

Therefore, mapmakers need to keep their posts updated. Most of you are very good about this. What I mean is that the first post in your thread should include the following information:

1. Most Recent Version of the Map (Large and Small)
2. A Description of the Map - what makes it different from/the same as Classic
3. Territory Counts, Continent Bonuses, Neutral Starting terrs, and other "Gimmicks" in a [ List ] format.
4. A summary of the major changes - quantify how many revisions you have been through
5. (as appropriate) Links for the maps and XML

I realize that this is a LOT more work for some of you. None of you have those revision summaries - but it would definitely help people viewing a map for the first time.

what do you mean by revision summaries?

something like what i did on AoR?

V23

DONE:
* moved army shields as requested by telvannia and cairnswk
* made both large and small at the same luminosity.

TO-DO:
* xml (started)

NOTES:
* in this version i put army testing results. i want to get feedback on visibility and stuff. i know they aren't aligned perfectly but that will be done at a later stage.

[image here]

That's good for individual revisions, so we know what's been changed (but many times it may have changed back and forth between things). For revision summaries - I meant something more like this:

Code: Select all

Features Implemented:
Legend Color changed to black from green (many different attempts) - v12
Bonus for Heartland changed to 4 from 7 - v 3
Incorporated Poll Results for "Animated Description of Mr. Maps" terr look
.
.
.

Features Rejected:
Bombardment from Cybertron to Spamalot - v 2
Non-Linear Attacks [Teleports] from LoD to KoE - v 5
+100 Bonus for Aerial Attack - v 15
Picture of DiM's underwear (I may be sadistic - but not THAT sadistic) - v 4
.
.
.



[yeti_c]

When I'm changing BOB - I create "release notes" as that makes it easier to

a) keep people informed
b) keep me informed
c) provide a log of changes and implemented features...

It doesn't take long - a sentence per change is fine.

C.

[RjBeals]

Um yeah... can we move on and get back to critiquing maps? This is really ridiculous. It's a damn game forum. Don't take it so serious.

[oaktown]

Features Implemented:
Legend Color changed to black from green (many different attempts) - v12
Bonus for Heartland changed to 4 from 7 - v 3
Incorporated Poll Results for "Animated Description of Mr. Maps" terr look
.

Features Rejected:
Bombardment from Cybertron to Spamalot - v 2
Non-Linear Attacks [Teleports] from LoD to KoE - v 5
+100 Bonus for Aerial Attack - v 15
Picture of DiM's underwear (I may be sadistic - but not THAT sadistic) - v 4

My concern is that this is going to be incredibly long, especially for more complex maps. My current project is small and new, yet off the top of my head I can think of 40 things I've already changed; many territory changes, a dozen border movements, a handful of color changes, graphic elements added, legend text changed, etc... which ones do i list?

The basic idea here is right on though: the first post needs to include information. For many users this first post is the only thing they'll ever read, and we can save ourselves a lot of work by giving basic information on this post.

Rather than a detailed work history, i would rather see the mapmaker simply list the few areas of recent concern or issues under discussion. For instance, for Duck & Cover I'd write...

Current concerns being discussed in this thread:
Shape/design of mushroom clouds
Background of USA
Location of bombers/clouds
Language of bottom legend

This doesn't mean somebody can't comment on something else, but it gives the new viewer a guide to leaving a post that is relevant and useful. This will save the user time, and ultimately save mapmaker time because I don't have to weed through/respond to pointless or off-topic posts.

But most importantly, there needs to be a uniform format for this. It's simple: include three or four basic pieces of info or the map doesn't make it out of map ideas. Andy? Coleman?

[Coleman]

I would consider enforcing that, but not without discussing it with Andy first. I think adding more rules will actually serve to further alienate new map makers, even though it may encourage more constructive posting from outsiders.

It seems like a double edged sword to me. Will require some thought and discussion time. We have been gradually moving towards requiring better information in the first post, however. Such as the latest map and version number. This would be another step that way, but I don't want to make the starting slope too steep for a newcomer.

[DiM]

For revision summaries - I meant something more like this:

Code: Select all

Features Implemented:
Legend Color changed to black from green (many different attempts) - v12
Bonus for Heartland changed to 4 from 7 - v 3
Incorporated Poll Results for "Animated Description of Mr. Maps" terr look
.
.
.

Features Rejected:
Bombardment from Cybertron to Spamalot - v 2
Non-Linear Attacks [Teleports] from LoD to KoE - v 5
+100 Bonus for Aerial Attack - v 15
Picture of DiM's underwear (I may be sadistic - but not THAT sadistic) - v 4
.
.
.



as oaktown said this can get really really long. and in my opinion really really really boring.

for example in AoM i had ~80 updates before the map was quenched.
i don't think people want to read all the changes i made especially since there are so damn many. i believe each update had 3-15 changes. multiply that by 80 and you'll get hundreds of lines of text.

do you think people will be interested i changed the font 20+ times?

or that i tweaked the borders 30 times?

i don't know how useful this might be since most people will simply skip this part when they see so much bloody text.

[yeti_c]

I think it works if you do it each time you put a new version up...

(If you really want then maintain an old copy of it somewhere but don't enforce that)

C.

[Coleman]

Like I've already said, for all of us that have been here for nearly a year or more this first post list isn't a huge deal to make, but if we want new people making maps I don't want them more overwhelmed with requirements then they have to be.

Has the Conquer Club Mentoring Program been working well? Would having a Foundry Mentoring Program be a bad idea?

[Elijah S]

Like I've already said, for all of us that have been here for nearly a year or more this first post list isn't a huge deal to make, but if we want new people making maps I don't want them more overwhelmed with requirements then they have to be.

Has the Conquer Club Mentoring Program been working well? Would having a Foundry Mentoring Program be a bad idea?

I think you're onto something here...
A Foundry Mentoring program would be a great thing!
I know that with my first map I'd never have thought to do many of the things that were suggested by others in the forum. (And while I sometimes hated when you guys were right, the map is better for it)

On a different note, I, as well as several other foundry members, have been frequenting the GD forums and think that if we in the Foundry really want to invite others to see what's going on in here it's as easy as contibuting to some of the discussions outside the Foundry.
By conveying the fact that we're not only mapmakers, but also CC players, we can lift the illusionary veil that we're all just in here doing our own thing.

[oaktown]

Would having a Foundry Mentoring Program be a bad idea?

Months ago in the debates (which were much like the current debates) that led to Keyogi becoming a C.A. I suggested the creation of a team of foundry deputies who were willing and able to be assigned to a new map/s. The deupties could help keep the process moving, sort through conflicting feedback, and generally support the mapmaker move along the road to forging and quenching. A mentor system along those lines would be a immensely helpful, both in terms of mapmaking and in dispelling this notion that anybody who has quenced a map has somehow been corrupted.

As for the First Post question, there are already guidelines in the How To Make A Map thread for what the first post should include. The guidelines are simple and useful - theme, # terits, bonuses, special features, map size - but nobody reads them and they aren't enforced. I've left posts on dozens of new maps suggesting the mapmaker read the How To Make A Map, and if this has been seen as rude or as asking too much then so be it. There is very little clear process around here, so the least we can do is try to adhere to what guidelines we do have.