Foundry Death?

[Lone.prophet]

there is nothing hard about XML its just allot of work

[Coleman]

My current position is if the next maps we do are just as buggy I'll concede, so it's until I screw up again.

[DiM]

then i guess the conversation is pretty much over. all that needs to be done now is for coleman to talk to andy and decide the number of people they need and contact those that fit the requirements.

give it a month or 2 to see how things go and then we'll talk again and figure out if the system works or if it needs improvement.

any other talking is pretty much futile since we all agree on the thing that more CAs are needed and making nominations is also kinda useless because i think this is a "don't call us we'll call you" type of arrangement.

[yeti_c]

there is nothing hard about XML its just allot of work

I disagree...

It's less work than drawing a map... it's just time consuming - and you have to concentrate...

Before the updates some of the XML was hard - working the logic out to get the bonuses correct was the hard part...

Now the XML is more flexible - and soon it will be omnipotent... thus making it easier to code...

C.

[yeti_c]

My current position is if the next maps we do are just as buggy I'll concede, so it's until I screw up again.

I wouldn't say you screwed up.

C.

[oaktown]

Alright, here's my latest rethink.

We have three positions (not including Andy):
Cartography Assistant: Coleman
Graphics Specialist (or Pixel Pushers)
Gameplay Specialist (or Grease Monkeys)

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that either of the last two jobs would be manageable if shared. We put together a pool of two or three mapmakers who are specialists in each area. When Coleman moves a map to the main foundry, he assigns to the map two specialist: a gameplay specialist (Grease Monkey) and graphics specialist (Pixel Pusher). The specialists are responsible for keeping up with that map, and stamping it when its ready to move on. This is beneficial for several reasons:
• Vastly eliminates the workload of any on CA.
• Allows each CA to determine and work within his maximum workload.
• If a CA hits a busy stretch or goes on vacation, he can just asked not to be assigned maps for a couple of weeks.
• Creates a mentor-like system in which the mapmaker has two dedicated, experienced mapmakers to go to for help.
• CAs won't be in the position of being responsible for their own maps.
• Gives new mapmakers access to a Grease Monkey who knows what is possible/impossible through the XML.
• People might actually be willing to take the job.

Coleman would still be there at the beginning of each map's process to assign a Pixel Pusher and GreaseMonkey to each map, and toward the end of each process as the maps are forged and coded. Andy would still be there to quench.

[DiM]

i like this one the most.
also i'd like to point out that perhaps instead of 3 PP and 3 GM we could have 4 PP and 2 GM since the xml will take far less than the graphics and especially since coleman is good with the xml and he can also double check.
so there would be 4 teams. one PP in each team and each GM is in 2 teams.

[Lone.prophet]

i dont see how that works it is just like stealing away peoples work, it works better if those assistent just reply more in threads so people know what to work on and if they need tips they will ask for it if they are serious

[gimil]

I dont like it, im 100% how to word how i dont like it but i dont feel asigning people to maps would work out well.

[Lone.prophet]

the people here need to give nice critic to people who are hard working and not just for 1 map, a map needs to be based on how more than one person feels about it

[Coleman]

i dont see how that works it is just like stealing away peoples work, it works better if those assistent just reply more in threads so people know what to work on and if they need tips they will ask for it if they are serious

I agree here. If we were designing a team to be an all star map making force for lack I would want the oaktown system. But as advisers I'm not sure how important it is.

[DiM]

i dont see how that works it is just like stealing away peoples work, it works better if those assistent just reply more in threads so people know what to work on and if they need tips they will ask for it if they are serious

what? who's stealing people's work?

[Lone.prophet]

^^ you really dont understand it?

[DiM]

i dont see how that works it is just like stealing away peoples work, it works better if those assistent just reply more in threads so people know what to work on and if they need tips they will ask for it if they are serious

I agree here. If we were designing a team to be an all star map making force for lack I would want the oaktown system. But as advisers I'm not sure how important it is.

you agree??

perhaps you guys didn't understand what oaktown was saying?

or perhaps i didn't.

from what i understand nobody is stealing work.

each map will have a team of CAs that will guide it towards completition by providing feedback ironing out issues and so on. the CAs team won't do graphics they won't have the name on the map and so on.

[Coleman]

Alright... But I still think that it's something people should do in small amounts for everyone. Assigning people makes them feel like walking hand in hand with the map maker the whole way, which we really shouldn't have to do.

[gimil]

Alright... But I still think that it's something people should do in small amounts for everyone. Assigning people makes them feel like walking hand in hand with the map maker the whole way, which we really shouldn't have to do.

agreed,

[yeti_c]

Alright... But I still think that it's something people should do in small amounts for everyone. Assigning people makes them feel like walking hand in hand with the map maker the whole way, which we really shouldn't have to do.

Yeah - but each of these advisors would be a) free to roam into other topics b) would have more than 1 map.

I quite like the idea from Oaky - but the problem is you end up having 6 people who are kindof CA's but aren't - they're just more "dedicated" members of the forum... which is a bit of a halfway house!!

However - perhaps that is what is wanted - as like Oaky - I can see the amount of time necessary to be a full CA is prohibitive...

C.

[oaktown]

i dont see how that works it is just like stealing away peoples work, it works better if those assistent just reply more in threads so people know what to work on and if they need tips they will ask for it if they are serious

I agree here. If we were designing a team to be an all star map making force for lack I would want the oaktown system. But as advisers I'm not sure how important it is.

Yeah, i don't get the stealing thing either. The larger idea is that the Foundry needs come up with a set of expectations for a map before it is Forged: the Pixel Pushers and Grease Monkeys would just be there to make sure that a map meets those expectations before being given the stamp of approval to move on to the Forge. The assignment thing is just to divvy up the workload so there isn't one CA who is expected to follow every thread and catch every problem. Plus, by assigning a a Pixel Pusher to a map, it identifies an experienced mapmaker to whom the new mapmaker can go when they are stuck.

Keep in mind that i as i rethink the CA role, I consider what I would be willing to do... not that I am hungry for the job, but because I think that most mapmakers are like me in that they don't want to spend all of their time keeping up with all of the other threads in the foundry and not working on their own projects. Cairnswk left the job to work on his own maps, and we will keep repeating that pattern unless we can figure out how to make this job manageable.

[Lone.prophet]

i still think the structue should change, it will be way more clear were each map is than

[Coleman]

Well 2 didn't work because cairnswk ended up catching everything I didn't want to do. If it's two other people catching the stuff I'm not into it will probably be fine.

Like I already said though, I think we are running around in circles until Andy is ready to start pursuing the matter further by seeing who is really going to do it in his own special way.

I'll just say that, if it's you, you'll know when it is happening.

[DiM]

i'll make a parallel between the 2 solutions presented here and real life.

it's a fortunate coincidence that i've worked in both systems in real life, each with it's own advantages and disadvantages.

let's say we have the marketing department of a hotel and in that department we have 2 teams of 2 people each. in the next month the hotel will host 2 big events. now come the 2 methods:

1. GO ALL THE WAY. this method means that each team is assigned one of the events from start to finish. they take care of the initial talking of the prices the settings and so on. then they take care of the reservations the catering and everything, after that they make sure the event goes well throughout the duration and finally they take care of the finishing, payment, conclusions and so on.

2. STEP BY STEP. this method works like this. one team takes care of the first stage of the process and the other team takes care of the last stage.
meaning that team 1 will take care of contact details settings and all that, then the second team takes care of the smooth running of the even and so on.


in my opinion the best solution (in theory) is step by step (similar to what i suggested) because it ensures each step of the process is given total attention by a team that is specialized in that field. for example team 1 is expert in initial talking and team 2 is expert in smooth running the event. BUT the biggest problem of this system is that the 2 teams must have perfect collaboration. without it information is lost mistakes are made and shit happens. back when i was in marketing we did things this way. and it was sweet but some people left and because the new people weren't familiar with our methods we switched to go all the way. that's why i suggested the secret forum where each CA manages a thread for each map. like a dossier for each event. in theory i think this would provide the best results. in practice however, after giving it more thought i sort of doubt it. because it's one thing to be in the same office with a guy see him every day and establish a relation than what we have on the internet. in real life communication is much much easier. and this communication is what i fear will cause problems here.

the go all the way method (similar to oaktowns suggestion) has the advantage that each team takes care of an event from start to finish and knows the event inside out and can work out every problem. it also has the advantage of versatility and adaptability. meaning that if the other team is on vacation they can take over their work because they know how to do all the steps. the problem with this method is that it doesn't ensure top quality unless top notch people do the job. it's hard to be an expert in all areas. for example it's hard to be an expert in xml but also be an expert in graphics.

but since here we don't do professional jobs and since we need versatility and adaptability more than anything i think oaktowns suggestion might be the most appropriate. it won't have the same potential results but it will provide more than enough to suit the foundry's needs.

[DiM]

lesson of the day: put a big post and everybody will shut up

[gimil]

lesson of the day: put a big post and everybody will shut up

well i guess ill have to bounch back

as you mentioned both systems have there own advantages,

the foundry is along, but not nesseseraly a complicated one. I think the best approach is to simply let a cartographer get on with it and allow the CA's to assist where needed. Its not perfect but asigning people is not a good idea. There would be to many clashing of intrests on how things should be done rather than letting the cartographer do it there own way.

[DiM]

the foundry is along, but not nesseseraly a complicated one. I think the best approach is to simply let a cartographer get on with it and allow the CA's to assist where needed. Its not perfect but asigning people is not a good idea. There would be to many clashing of intrests on how things should be done rather than letting the cartographer do it there own way.

neither me nor oaktown said anything about limiting the map makers and not letting them do what they want. the map makers will still have all the freedom they need but the cartos will guide them.
a carto will step in and suggest a change only if there's a problem. the map maker will do it his own way and if there's no problem then the cartos won't bother him.

[gimil]

the foundry is along, but not nesseseraly a complicated one. I think the best approach is to simply let a cartographer get on with it and allow the CA's to assist where needed. Its not perfect but asigning people is not a good idea. There would be to many clashing of intrests on how things should be done rather than letting the cartographer do it there own way.

neither me nor oaktown said anything about limiting the map makers and not letting them do what they want. the map makers will still have all the freedom they need but the cartos will guide them.
a carto will step in and suggest a change only if there's a problem. the map maker will do it his own way and if there's no problem then the cartos won't bother him.

seems a little more feasable, im jsut uncomfortable at the though of the procees being drowned by to many "higher" (one for a better word) up people.