Map Organization Project [Ver 3 - Pg 13]

[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...

[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.

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...

your right, but maps can be in multiple categories,


medieval: siege, age of realms, etc
pirates: aom
nuclear war: duck and cover usapoc
resources: aom and aor
castles:aom, aor, seige
small map: duck and cover, doodle earth...

ofcourse you dont want 100 categories... you wouldn't need too many to focus in on commonalities. any category with only one map probably shouldn't be included, "pirates", until there is another pirate related map.

[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...

your right, but maps can be in multiple categories,


medieval: siege, age of realms, etc
pirates: aom
nuclear war: duck and cover usapoc
resources: aom and aor
castles:aom, aor, seige
small map: duck and cover, doodle earth...

ofcourse you dont want 100 categories... you wouldn't need too many to focus in on commonalities. any category with only one map probably shouldn't be included, "pirates", until there is another pirate related map.

interesting but the problem with such categorizing is that it will lead to lots and lots of categories thus cause even more cluttering.

[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.

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...

your right, but maps can be in multiple categories,


medieval: siege, age of realms, etc
pirates: aom
nuclear war: duck and cover usapoc
resources: aom and aor
castles:aom, aor, seige
small map: duck and cover, doodle earth...

ofcourse you dont want 100 categories... you wouldn't need too many to focus in on commonalities. any category with only one map probably shouldn't be included, "pirates", until there is another pirate related map.

interesting but the problem with such categorizing is that it will lead to lots and lots of categories thus cause even more cluttering.

more clutter than 60+ alphabetized maps?

You can easily fit all those categories in a single drop down.

[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...

your right, but maps can be in multiple categories,


medieval: siege, age of realms, etc
pirates: aom
nuclear war: duck and cover usapoc
resources: aom and aor
castles:aom, aor, seige
small map: duck and cover, doodle earth...

ofcourse you dont want 100 categories... you wouldn't need too many to focus in on commonalities. any category with only one map probably shouldn't be included, "pirates", until there is another pirate related map.

interesting but the problem with such categorizing is that it will lead to lots and lots of categories thus cause even more cluttering.

more clutter than 60+ alphabetized maps?

You can easily fit all those categories in a single drop down.

hmm i assumed the thumbnails for each map would still be visible in each category and that would have meant probably 200+ thumbnails on one page since the maps fall under several categories.

if it's simple categorization with no thumbnails then i don't like it. thumbnails are very important.

i imagine the same layout we have now but each map name is a link to the description post and next to the name are the rating and feedback.

that would include all the info needed and at the same time keep the familiar layout.

[mibi]

hmm i assumed the thumbnails for each map would still be visible in each category and that would have meant probably 200+ thumbnails on one page since the maps fall under several categories.

uh.. that would certainly be the least efficient way to go about it. It could be set up so that in addition to the info link all the categories would be listed.

like

-------------
|thumnail|
------------
link
resouces, medieval, large map

so that if someone like a map because of its medievalness they click the category and it reorganizes with all the medieval maps at top.

anyways, there are 100 ways to implemented soft categories and we shouldn't nix it based on the worst possible implementation.

the whole game finder needs an overhaul to begin with.

[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.

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

AOR isn't just an example - it has very low round completion rates in comparison to other maps.

C.

[yeti_c]

hmm i assumed the thumbnails for each map would still be visible in each category and that would have meant probably 200+ thumbnails on one page since the maps fall under several categories.

But confused here - how do you get 200 Thumbnails with 60 odd maps?!

C.

[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.

AOR isn't just an example - it has very low round completion rates in comparison to other maps.

C.

not really, as i said before it all depends on opponents and settings. look at any 6p games played in the CC2000 group. you'll see lengthy battles that last 20 30 or even more rounds.

[DiM]

hmm i assumed the thumbnails for each map would still be visible in each category and that would have meant probably 200+ thumbnails on one page since the maps fall under several categories.

But confused here - how do you get 200 Thumbnails with 60 odd maps?!

C.

take 65 maps and group them in 20 categories. each map is repeated 3-4 times in various categories and so you get 200+ thumbs

[yeti_c]

hmm i assumed the thumbnails for each map would still be visible in each category and that would have meant probably 200+ thumbnails on one page since the maps fall under several categories.

But confused here - how do you get 200 Thumbnails with 60 odd maps?!

C.

take 65 maps and group them in 20 categories. each map is repeated 3-4 times in various categories and so you get 200+ thumbs

I would've thought that you would have a page of categories - followed by a page of maps... Standard UI... but like Tabbed browsing.

C.

[WidowMakers]

Just a suggestion but we might want to find out what lack can and will be willing to do as far as adding new tabs or pages and listing the maps multiple times. I know when I talked to him in the past he really wanted to keep the page simple.

I am starting to agree with DiM. It is to complicated and subjective to sort the maps by either difficulty or genre.

I say have user ratings just like feedback or alphabetically (currently)

1-5 stars and you can delete your old rating and adjust at any time. That way new maps that are hard may get a quick bad score but over time , once they are understood, they can be adjusted by the players.

My 2 cents

WM

[DiM]

Just a suggestion but we might want to find out what lack can and will be willing to do as far as adding new tabs or pages and listing the maps multiple times. I know when I talked to him in the past he really wanted to keep the page simple.

I am starting to agree with DiM. It is to complicated and subjective to sort the maps by either difficulty or genre.

I say have user ratings just like feedback or alphabetically (currently)

1-5 stars and you can delete your old rating and adjust at any time. That way new maps that are hard may get a quick bad score but over time , once they are understood, they can be adjusted by the players.

My 2 cents

WM

well put WM, as i already said the goal here is to put as much info as possible but at the same time keeping it simple and perhaps within the same layout. and rating + feedback system perfectly meets those requirements.

[hulmey]

A star rating sounds good. Maps can be caterogised by popularity! You have 1 to 5 stars and also a NEW category!

[mibi]

Just a suggestion but we might want to find out what lack can and will be willing to do as far as adding new tabs or pages and listing the maps multiple times. I know when I talked to him in the past he really wanted to keep the page simple.

I am starting to agree with DiM. It is to complicated and subjective to sort the maps by either difficulty or genre.

I say have user ratings just like feedback or alphabetically (currently)

1-5 stars and you can delete your old rating and adjust at any time. That way new maps that are hard may get a quick bad score but over time , once they are understood, they can be adjusted by the players.

My 2 cents

WM

Ratings ARE subjective are not very useful to people who like maps that are not super popular. A player may love the complex gameplay of Valley of Kings but if it's rated 1.5 stars they will never play it, however it if is in a category marked 'complex" or whatever, they can find it AND other maps that are similar that they may like.

1-5 ratings are hardly a conduit for 'as much info as possible'..

and we all want to keep it simple, which is totally possible with a little foresight into the UI. It will only be complicated if we it let it.

Seriously what good is a big list of 100 maps listed alphabetically or by popularity... its still a big list the player has to sift through. The point of organization is smaller more focused lists, i.e categories.

[DiM]

1-5 ratings are hardly a conduit for 'as much info as possible'..

it's not just the 1-5 star ratings. it's the ratings+feedback + info link combo that can offer all the info needed with the least amount of space occupied and keeping the same simple format.

the ratings offer a clear indication of pupularity and quality
the info link offers all the info about the map: gimmickes terits story, etc
the feedbak offers clear user opinions.


catagorizing as you say doesn't really help that much. yes it could save a lot of space but i think it won't help a new player decide. i don't care that aom will be listed in pirates, fiction, resources. those soft categories mean nothing to me as a new player and they don't tell me if a map is good or bad complicated or easy large or small.

while the ratings+feedback+info link combo offers me all that and a bag of chips