Map Organization Project [Ver 3 - Pg 13]

[Coleman]

All the first posts have been updated with more gimmicks, gimmick complexity values, and the new formula along with results.

[Coleman]

I'm going to start posting this over and over again as we update it, like a map. Please keep in mind this post to lackattack is our end goal.

Version 3

Changes

• Removed Categories
• Improved the Information Page portion of the post
• Merged Rating System and Map Feedback into one suggestion
• Added information to Rating & Feedback, including peripheral links

Our Evolving Post To Lackattack

Greetings from the Map Foundry!

We in the foundry have begun to realize that as we add more and more maps to your game the learning curve for new players continues to increase.

It was never our intent to contribute towards alienating new players by shoving a giant list of unfamiliar maps down their throats. We recognize that when you came up with the alphabetical listing for the maps you had a great idea in putting Classic first, as it allows new players to instantly find something familiar right away.

Unfortunately, these new players often eventually want to try new maps and right now the alphabetical list, while convenient in many instances, is not the best medium for new players to decide what their second map should be.

So the foundry has been hard at work to provide you with a list of possible solutions to this problem.

We want players to be able to find maps that suit them quickly and efficiently in a way that is comfortable to them.

With that in mind We've come up with a few effective ways of helping new users identify which maps would be good for them to try.

1) Info Links Under The Pictures

These would be well written information about each map. This information would include:
• number of territories and continents
• the gameplay features present
• accompanying story if relevant
• map background, recommended gameplay settings
• and a helpful description of the map.
We suggest implementing this feature in a fashion similar or identical to these peripherals that WidowMakers has created:
http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/6016 ... eenwv2.jpg
http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/1179/mapinfoab0.jpg (I'll html encode the information posts for you)
http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/5226 ... eensq8.jpg

2) Community Map Rating & Feedback System

Next to the links we brought up in 1) There could be 5 CC stars. A perfect map has 5 red cc star. A horrible map has 5 gray cc stars.

These stars are an average rating from players who have completed the maps. Our idea is at the end of the game when you load up the links for players to leave feedback for one another you also give them the option to rate and leave feedback for the map.

Under our system players can only rate maps they have played and they can only rate once, but just like player feedback a player can alter this rating at their leisure.

In addition on the find games screen and start a game screen we think it would be beneficial for players to be able to switch between sorting by A-Z and sorting by Rating.

These ratings and feedback could show up like a profile page for the map. We have not yet built a peripheral for that, but here are some for portions of the feature:
http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/6223 ... eenhd5.jpg
http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/9895 ... ackjr8.jpg

It is our sincere and greatest hope that you are willing to work with us and our ideas to improve your website. We have put a lot of work into them and are waiting to hear from you.

Thank you.

[yeti_c]

then i'll have to say the number of terits doesn't necessrily reflect in the duration of the game. i've seen 50 round games on doodle earth and i've seen 3 round games on Age of Realms. and there's a huge size difference.

That's because you need to fix the gameplay of AOR!!

C.

[Qwert]

Agreed

I agree with qwert

Geographical
Historical
Fiction
Abstract

Because some may fall into more than one we are going to give them an order of priority:

1) Historical
2) Abstract
3) Fiction
4) Geographical

If something is historical it goes into that category first, even if it may be more than one of the above and so on down to Geographical if it fits no where else.

Almost forget you can put like these
1.Historical
2.Abstract
3.Fiction
4.Geographical
5.All maps
Then people can go direct to see all maps.

[MrBenn]

2) Community Map Rating System

Next to the links we brought up in 1) There could be 5 CC stars. A perfect map has 5 red cc star. A horrible map has 5 gray cc stars.

These stars are an average rating from players who have completed the maps. Our idea is at the end of the game when you load up the links for players to leave feedback for one another you also give them the option to rate the map.

Under our system players can only rate maps they have played and they can only rate once.

[color=blue]

I wonder if the maps could be rated for complexity (easy, normal, hard etc) rather than a general rating??

While it makes sense for each player to only rate each map once, I'm of the opinion that this rating should be adjustable... ie. The first time you play a map you might hate it (if you get blitzed by something unexpected, for example), but after several plays, you might appreciate it a bit more, and think that it deserves a different rating? Also, if you can only rate a map once, I think the negatives (by people who've just lost) would outweigh the positives?

[Aerial Attack]

You forgot to edit Feedback #1 and ask if people thought those were the appropriate gimmick values. Or do people think they should be higher/lower (and if so, why).

-- Aerial Attack

[Coleman]

You're right. I was meaning once in the same way you can only leave feedback once. I guess I should specify that.

[Aerial Attack]

2) Community Map Rating System

Next to the links we brought up in 1) There could be 5 CC stars. A perfect map has 5 red cc star. A horrible map has 5 gray cc stars.

These stars are an average rating from players who have completed the maps. Our idea is at the end of the game when you load up the links for players to leave feedback for one another you also give them the option to rate the map.

Under our system players can only rate maps they have played and they can only rate once.

[color=blue]

I wonder if the maps could be rated for complexity (easy, normal, hard etc) rather than a general rating??

While it makes sense for each player to only rate each map once, I'm of the opinion that this rating should be adjustable... ie. The first time you play a map you might hate it (if you get blitzed by something unexpected, for example), but after several plays, you might appreciate it a bit more, and think that it deserves a different rating? Also, if you can only rate a map once, I think the negatives (by people who've just lost) would outweigh the positives?

The system would be like our current feedback system. Until the game has been archived, you can edit your feedback. I believe you can always withdraw your feedback. As for negatives outweighing positives ... this could be true, but I highly doubt it. Maybe people don't give neg feedbacks for fear of retaliation - but there are plenty who do anyways. The same will be said for maps (of course w/o the fear of reprisals). My guess is that 80-90% of the feedbacks will be valid.

-- Aerial Attack

[DiM]

DiM, I'm not impressed by your reading comprehension at all.

If we're talking about new users, which is, I think why this is being done for the most part, then Size (number of territories) IS a good way for them to distinguish between maps. It's a very basic way that they can see separation and then by further inspection, they can see which maps in that category fit their needs.


But, I think what the wide range of opinions in this thread has showed us is that there is no ONE way to sort the maps that everyone will think is best. Therefore, the best way is to offer multiple ways for people to view the different maps.

mate i already explained simple sorting by terit number doesn't offer any valuable info for the new users. absolutely none at all. it doesn't say anything about popularity theme length of the game story proposed game modes. nothing. it's just an arbitrary and useless sorting just like the alphabetical one we have now. and why change the alphabetical one with a terit count one if there are no advantages.

why can't ONE sorting method be best? why can't the rating method be that ONE? a rating method with a feedback system for maps will offer all the info a new player needs.

[DiM]

But, I think what the wide range of opinions in this thread has showed us is that there is no ONE way to sort the maps that everyone will think is best. Therefore, the best way is to offer multiple ways for people to view the different maps.

Agreed

I agree with qwert

Geographical
Historical
Fiction
Abstract

Because some may fall into more than one we are going to give them an order of priority:

1) Historical
2) Abstract
3) Fiction
4) Geographical

If something is historical it goes into that category first, even if it may be more than one of the above and so on down to Geographical if it fits no where else.

come on this is absurd why group maps like that?
this is yet another method of complicating things without any real advantage. and who decides that abstract should be last and historical second?

really people, come on why are you trying to complicate things so much without the slightest advantage gained.

[DiM]

then i'll have to say the number of terits doesn't necessrily reflect in the duration of the game. i've seen 50 round games on doodle earth and i've seen 3 round games on Age of Realms. and there's a huge size difference.

That's because you need to fix the gameplay of AOR!!

C.

age of realms was just an example. it has nothing to do with the map itself.

as i said in that post (which you cunningly split to quote what you needed) the number of terits is only 10% responsible for game duration.

40% are the settings and 50% the opponents.

doodle earth no cards 6p assassin between majors or higher can last as much as 50 rounds.
while world 2.1 1v1 escalating major vs cook can end in 5 rounds.

seriously number of terits is very very little related to the game length.

[DiM]

1) Info Links Under The Pictures

These would be well written (we aren't sure by who yet) information about each map. This information would include how to play, interesting features, individual map statistics, etc.

i love this one.

2) Community Map Rating System

Next to the links we brought up in 1) There could be 5 CC stars. A perfect map has 5 red cc star. A horrible map has 5 gray cc stars.

These stars are an average rating from players who have completed the maps. Our idea is at the end of the game when you load up the links for players to leave feedback for one another you also give them the option to rate the map.

Under our system players can only rate maps they have played and they can only rate once.

this is the best way of sorting maps. clear indication of a map's quality

3) Map Feedback System

Players have feedback, why not maps? This is an alternate idea for the Map Rating System where each map gets a profile page and can have feedback left for it by players that have played on them.

i totally agree with this one too. each player can only leave 1 feedback that can be edited at a later time or deleted completely. however somebody must carefully moderate those feedbacks because i'm sure we'll have many in this form:

Negative. this is a crappy map because i lost on it.

so anything not factual, offensive, spam, etc must be removed.

4) Map Sorting By Categories (Still working on this part)

On the game finder and start a game screen players can choose between different ways of sorting the maps. When they click one the display changes and the maps split up into categories. Inside these categories they would display alphabetically as normal.

why sort the maps by categories? why complicate things? a new user wants a fresh fast way to get a game started. he needs all the info in 1 place easy accessible with 1 click and the rating system + feedback system and the info page offer just that. why add lots of other buttons for all kinds of sorting methods especially since those sorting methods don't offer anything valuable.
each time you want to implement a sorting method ask yourself a few questions:
How relevant is this sorting method?
What are the advantages?
What are the disadvantages?

Map Size

• 18-36 Small: 10 Maps
  
• 37-47 Normal: 31 Maps
• 48-66 Large: 16 Maps
• 67+ Huge: 7 Maps
• (Will Be Link To Exact List)

How relevant is this sorting method?
not very relevant. it doesn't offer valuable info, in fact it doesn't add anything that isn't already present in the map info link presented at #1.

What are the advantages?
none

What are the disadvantages?

it will confuse people into thinking a small map will offer a fast game and a large one a lengthier game. which is totally wrong because terit count has almost nothing to do with the duration of a game. it's all about settings and opponents.
as i previously stated a doodle earth no cards 6p assassin between majors or higher can last as much as 50 rounds, while world 2.1 1v1 escalating major vs cook can end in 5 rounds.

Map Type

• Historical
• Abstract
• Fictional
• Geography
• (Will Be Link To Exact List)

How relevant is this sorting method?
more relevant than the previous one but again it doesn't add anything that isn't already present in the map info link presented at #1.

What are the advantages?
none

What are the disadvantages?
it can lead to confusion especially for the maps that fit in more than 1 category because by ignoring 1 or more themes and selecting the most "important" one you actually do harm to that map. for example widow makers' "time and place" map fits in all 4 categories but according to this system it will be included in historical. come on seriously now that would be a tremendous drawback for that map.

Rating Complexity

• 0.00-3.66 Simple: 15 Maps
• 3.67-4.24 Normal: 22 Maps
• 4.25-5.99 Complex: 19 Maps
• 6.00+ Insane: 11 Maps
• (Will Be Link To Exact List)

How relevant is this sorting method?
it could be very relevant if there was a proper way of quantifying complexity. but there isn't one so it's relevance plummets to zero.

What are the advantages?
again there could be many advantages but for the said reason there isn't a single one.

What are the disadvantages?
ohohoho. don't even get me started here. this is the most flawed sorting method. it has so many disadvantages i won't even be bothered to explain them again. just read this post

[Coleman]

Does anyone agree with DiM regarding categories?

[mibi]

what DiM said.

[DiM]

Does anyone agree with DiM regarding categories?

yes

[Coleman]

I still don't see the harm in giving people the option of sorting by territory count if they want. It's better then clicking random info links for a few hours.

This is a good source of how territory count isn't completely pointless: http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34210

What if I did a massive data mining project and came up with the average number or rounds each map takes to complete? Would an option to sort by that be better?

We'd have a problem with brand new maps if we did that, but if you think people are all like you and naturally correlate territory count and game length...

[rebelman]

Does anyone agree with DiM regarding categories?

can i agree and disagree ? - many of his points are valid but for the noob playing for the first time or for the more experienced player thats been around for a while but stuck mainly to classic, it helps to know what you are getting yourself into before its too late thats why i am still an advocate of the easy, medium, hard, insane categorisation. As blitz's thread elsewhere has shown surprising few have played all maps and even fewer visit the foundry so this info. would be a great help. I was playing gran turismo on the playstation last night there is avast difference between the easy tracks and the difficult ones but unlike cc its obvious which is which before you play them - cc could and should go this way as well.

[rebelman]

but if you think people are all like you and naturally correlate territory count and game length...

do you really think that most people on this site are like DiM & Mibi

[Coleman]

but if you think people are all like you and naturally correlate territory count and game length...

do you really think that most people on this site are like DiM & Mibi

My unprofessional sarcasm was apparently lost there.

[DiM]

I still don't see the harm in giving people the option of sorting by territory count if they want. It's better then clicking random info links for a few hours.

This is a good source of how territory count isn't completely pointless: http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34210

What if I did a massive data mining project and came up with the average number or rounds each map takes to complete? Would an option to sort by that be better?

We'd have a problem with brand new maps if we did that, but if you think people are all like you and naturally correlate territory count and game length...

if you add sorting by terit count map complexity theme and who knows what kind of other sorting methods then the start a game page will become a total mess. people will have no idea what and where to click. the goal here is to put the maximum info with the least space occupied and attain something really simple to use. seriously now how many people do you think will use all the sorting methods? and especially when it comes to new players be sure that they won't bother to do it. i mean at the moment they don't even bother to switch from freestyle to sequential or other settings they just click create game.

as for the thread you pointed while it has a point it has absolutely no value regarding the number of terits sorting method.
a nood won't know if 88 is a magic number or not and because map are sorted by range: 10-30 terits 31-42 terits and so on they don't acually know the exact number of terits of a certain map. and even if they did they wouldn't know what it means. especially since some maps have starting neutrals. so for example realms has 93 terits but only 6 to start with.

regarding the average round it takes to complete a map. it would require huge huge numbars of games studied and then a presentation for all game types with all settings.
doodle in 1 v1 flat rate can end in 4 rounds or less.
doodle with 6p assassin no cards adjacent can last 50.

presenting a simple 5.1 rounds average doesn't give a player enough info because that average would include all game types and settings.

[DiM]

Does anyone agree with DiM regarding categories?

can i agree and disagree ? - many of his points are valid but for the noob playing for the first time or for the more experienced player thats been around for a while but stuck mainly to classic, it helps to know what you are getting yourself into before its too late thats why i am still an advocate of the easy, medium, hard, insane categorisation. As blitz's thread elsewhere has shown surprising few have played all maps and even fewer visit the foundry so this info. would be a great help. I was playing gran turismo on the playstation last night there is avast difference between the easy tracks and the difficult ones but unlike cc its obvious which is which before you play them - cc could and should go this way as well.

i agree complexity would be a great way to sort things but is impossible to achieve.

for example why most people avoid crosswords and say it is too complex?
is it because of it's many gimmicks or fancy bonus schemes? hell no. it's because graphically it's hard for them to say what borders what and because they can't think outside the box and visualize the borders. this makes crosswords one of the most complicated maps around and yet you can't quantify that with any formula. same goes for battle of actium. people say it is complex but in fact they are confused by the terit layout not by the bonuses or gimmicks.

[mibi]

upon further thinking, i think the best way to do it would be involving tags or soft categories.

for example, D-Day could be tagged as WW2, bird's eye, mibi, etc... so if you search for Bird's Eye or click the birds eye category, it comes up with D-Day, Seige, CCU, Madness, etc... Siege also comes up as medieval, as does Dark Age Britton etc...

this way you dont have to force a map into a category, rather let ir fall where it may in multiple categories. you would need a moderators touch to make sure midieval and middle ages were tagged the same and such... but this is the best way to use categories, in my opinion.

[DiM]

upon further thinking, i think the best way to do it would be involving tags or soft categories.

for example, D-Day could be tagged as WW2, bird's eye, mibi, etc... so if you search for Bird's Eye or click the birds eye category, it comes up with D-Day, Seige, CCU, Madness, etc... Siege also comes up as medieval, as does Dark Age Britton etc...

this way you dont have to force a map into a category, rather let ir fall where it may in multiple categories. you would need a moderators touch to make sure midieval and middle ages were tagged the same and such... but this is the best way to use categories, in my opinion.

while tag words may work in various other things they wouldn't here.

do you really think people will fill a search box with tag words to find a map?
i highly doubt it.

[mibi]

upon further thinking, i think the best way to do it would be involving tags or soft categories.

for example, D-Day could be tagged as WW2, bird's eye, mibi, etc... so if you search for Bird's Eye or click the birds eye category, it comes up with D-Day, Seige, CCU, Madness, etc... Siege also comes up as medieval, as does Dark Age Britton etc...

this way you dont have to force a map into a category, rather let ir fall where it may in multiple categories. you would need a moderators touch to make sure midieval and middle ages were tagged the same and such... but this is the best way to use categories, in my opinion.

while tag words may work in various other things they wouldn't here.

do you really think people will fill a search box with tag words to find a map?
i highly doubt it.

well then soft categories then..... its the same principle.

[DiM]

upon further thinking, i think the best way to do it would be involving tags or soft categories.

for example, D-Day could be tagged as WW2, bird's eye, mibi, etc... so if you search for Bird's Eye or click the birds eye category, it comes up with D-Day, Seige, CCU, Madness, etc... Siege also comes up as medieval, as does Dark Age Britton etc...

this way you dont have to force a map into a category, rather let ir fall where it may in multiple categories. you would need a moderators touch to make sure midieval and middle ages were tagged the same and such... but this is the best way to use categories, in my opinion.

while tag words may work in various other things they wouldn't here.

do you really think people will fill a search box with tag words to find a map?
i highly doubt it.

well then soft categories then..... its the same principle.

could you please provide a simple small example of soft categories? i don't fully follow the idea.
i mean i think i get it but i'm not sure.

you want let's say the following categs:

medieval: siege, age of realms, etc
pirates: aom
nuclear war: duck and cover usapoc
resources: aom and aor

etc...