Conquer Club

Concise description:
the 3 least maps played per year should be seriously considered for revamping or removing.


Specifics:
check on a quarterly basis and report out the top 10 maps being played the least amount, then by years end the 3 maps that are rarely played or are played much more minimally then the rest automatically need revamping and or removing.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:
Having more playable maps if revamped and or save room for other maps if removed, I rather they be revamped.





respects blitzy



others thoughts?

Blitzaholic wrote:Concise description:
the 3 least maps played per year should be seriously considered for revamping or removing.
Specifics:
check on a quarterly basis and report out the top 10 maps being played the least amount, then by years end the 3 maps that are rarely played or are played much more minimally then the rest automatically need revamping and or removing.
This will improve the following aspects of the site:
Having more playable maps if revamped and or same room for other maps if removed.
others thoughts?

I've always been of the opinion that "the more maps the merrier" personally (unless space is a real issue). Of course, that doesn't apply to revamping at all, just the potential removal. The other real problem with this is the new RANDOM MAP feature...once that's going long-term, that may fog-up the results of this sort of a query.

I'm a big fan of this idea. I hope there is not and never will be a limit on the total number of maps available, but definitely some of the lesser ones could use a revamp or in extreme case removal. I'm looking at you Madness! I love playing random maps, and this would make it even better.

I don't think any of the maps should be removed.
Even if not many people like them, the maps should stay for the few people that enjoy playing on them.

Crosswords, for example. even though it isn't the most popular map, it still brings back memories for me and I enjoy having a game on it every now and then.

I agree with Blitzy. Good idea.

I don't necessarily want any map removed either unless it is being played so little to none by almost virtually everyone, but for sure, there needs to be at least revampage on the top 3 to 5 maps that are played the least.


this would help the map maker get ideas to improve it, either will graphics, or enlarge it, game play, etc.

If you want something revamped... Do it yourself? You can't MAKE people revamp their maps; they've already worked long and hard to get it done. And besides that, making the map look any better won't distract from the shitty gameplay. If it's not fun, it doesn't matter if it's done by an artist made it, it won't be played.

Kotaro wrote:If you want something revamped... Do it yourself? You can't MAKE people revamp their maps; they've already worked long and hard to get it done. And besides that, making the map look any better won't distract from the shitty gameplay. If it's not fun, it doesn't matter if it's done by an artist made it, it won't be played.

Sadly you may be wrong a map that is aesthetchicly pleasing will distract people from poor game play. But you are right that if you want a map fixed you should do it your self but in some cases it is hard to understand the public opinion on all maps.
Luckily i have recently posted a suggestion of rating maps so people can then know which maps need to be revamped.

Kotaro wrote:If you want something revamped... Do it yourself? You can't MAKE people revamp their maps; they've already worked long and hard to get it done. And besides that, making the map look any better won't distract from the shitty gameplay. If it's not fun, it doesn't matter if it's done by an artist made it, it won't be played.

Are you totally stupid or just have stupid kotora? Your faulty tinted perception or reality is warped to the hilts, but if you are a still a little kid, that would explain it. I am not making anybody do anything, (hence the thread is named suggestions & bugs) this is just merely a SUGGESTION to help enhance any map that may not be played much, with some improvements it could be played more and gain popularity. This is NOT an insult to any map maker, but a suggestion on possible improvement.

hatchman wrote:I agree with Blitzy. Good idea.

ty hatchy

Blitzaholic wrote:Are you totally stupid or just have stupid kotora? Your faulty tinted perception or reality is warped to the hilts, but if you are a still a little kid, that would explain it. I am not making anybody do anything, (hence the thread is named suggestions & bugs) this is just merely a SUGGESTION to help enhance any map that may not be played much, with some improvements it could be played more and gain popularity. This is NOT an insult to any map maker, but a suggestion on possible improvement.

*Yawn* Flaming up your own thread. And LOL, call someone stupid, then show how you can't read a persons username. Very effective. If you don't want criticism, don't post; pissing yourself every time someone disagrees with you, is quite pathetic.

Suggesting that someone change up their map is an insult. People had months of foundry process time to talk about the maps; to even suggest that any of them need changing, is a shot at their map. None of the maps even look bad at all. If you wanted a map or two to be changed up, you should go to the mapmaker, not ask the admins to "seriously consider ramping or removing" them. And to quote your specifics ecactly:

Specifics:
check on a quarterly basis and report out the top 10 maps being played the least amount, then by years end the 3 maps that are rarely played or are played much more minimally then the rest automatically need revamping and or removing.

Dumb suggestion is dumb.

I would be curious to know which are the 5 least played maps. Anyone?

And Kotaro, surely you agree that a few maps are, shall we say, dated? Put your glasses on and have a look at the graphics. (I shall not name maps.)

The problem for me with this suggestion is, but perhaps you want to revamp this aspect too, is that I think the map isnt played for more reason then the graphics. The maps with poor gameplay will end up in the bottom and only a design-revamp will not help them.

hatchman wrote:I would be curious to know which are the 5 least played maps. Anyone?

And Kotaro, surely you agree that a few maps are, shall we say, dated? Put your glasses on and have a look at the graphics. (I shall not name maps.)

I will agree that not every map looks like it was made by a graphic master, however, they all have pretty damn good gameplay, and I don't see any need for a revamp at all.

Kotaro wrote:

hatchman wrote:I would be curious to know which are the 5 least played maps. Anyone?

And Kotaro, surely you agree that a few maps are, shall we say, dated? Put your glasses on and have a look at the graphics. (I shall not name maps.)

I will agree that not every map looks like it was made by a graphic master, however, they all have pretty damn good gameplay, and I don't see any need for a revamp at all.

How about retaining identical gameplay but sharpening up the graphics, make it more pleasing to zee eye?

hatchman wrote:
How about retaining identical gameplay but sharpening up the graphics, make it more pleasing to zee eye?

Which is, of course, fine, except how Blitz is stating it.

3 maps that are rarely played or are played much more minimally then the rest automatically need revamping and or removing.

These people that have designed these maps have each gone through a long, hard process, in which all graphics were discussed, and the map itself was adjusted many times. To require them to change their designs is an insult to the hard work, and stupid, because people had months to complain about them.

If anyone wants to revamp a map, they merely do it themselves, after PMing the map maker and asking his permission. It's already available, so get off your lazy ass and do it yourself.

Yeah I'd assume a revamp would bump the popularity of those infrequently played map and thus they wouldn't have to be removed.

I like the premise of Blitz's idea. Not all maps had to go through a long hard process to get approval (especially not the rigorous system that exists now). Crosswords and other early maps were posted, touched up a couple of times and then loaded to the site. They would never be approved today in their current condition, and therefore it does make sense to bring them up to the standards of the rest of the foundry. In fact, that is the entire reason that so many maps have already been revamped.

However, I think the proposed system is too strict. As many have said, gameplay affects how much a map is played, not just graphics. Revamps only take graphics into account, unless the original artist wants to drastically change the map. That can't be done without the original artist's help, so simply revamping the bottom 3 maps won't always be possible or necessary. Keep in mind that there will ALWAYS be a least popular map, even if it has great graphics.

The useful part of this suggestion, IMO is simply ranking the maps. This used to be done in various threads, I remember cairns kept a lot of detailed stats. You need to look at how many times the map is played each day, each week, each month, in total, etc. The more data the better for analyzing how popular a map is. Once this list is compiled, a judgment can be made as to how to change the bottom ranking maps, if necessary. For some, a graphical update is all that is needed. For others, it might be better to simply pull them from the site and really change the gameplay to make them more interesting. For others, they might be perfect the way they are because they satisfy a small niche... a map might not be widely played, but that doesn't mean it is not well liked by some members. If the map is unique, and it satisfies a niche, then there is no reason to change it even if it is not played very often.

Maps (and everything with their creation, and changes) have always been, and always will be the Map Foundry's department. I'll send this over there, and see if it is something they would like to see.

The problem with this is acquiring permission from the map makers for the revamps. For most of the oldest maps, the makers are no longer available, and some of the maps that people have wanted a revamp on, the mapmaker has simply refused.

Does removing those maps serve any purpose? I'd say, no. Since they're already on the site, let them be, it doesn't hurt anyone to have them on.

Much better to concentrate on new maps. If you really care about the quality of CC maps, offer your input on maps currently in development.

the popularity of a map has almost nothing to do with the graphic quality.
most of the maps look decent enough and if a map gets very few games then it's because the map mas a bad/difficult/weird gameplay not because the graphics suck. in fact with all revamps done so far a spike in popularity can be observed for a brief period after the revamp and then the map slowly returns to it's usual number of games.
so unless a map has really really bad graphics i'm against wasting a map maker's time on a revamp. i'd rather see a new map than a revamped one.

OliverFA has been working on a new XML Tutorial which covers (I think) the latest XML updates:
viewtopic.php?f=205&t=142787
Comments welcomed here: viewtopic.php?f=205&t=141794
I hope you find something of interest there, DiM. Welcome back!

ender516 wrote:OliverFA has been working on a new XML Tutorial which covers (I think) the latest XML updates:
viewtopic.php?f=205&t=142787
Comments welcomed here: viewtopic.php?f=205&t=141794
I hope you find something of interest there, DiM. Welcome back!

your links do not works for me. it says: You are not authorised to read this forum.
thanks for the welcome

DiM wrote:

ender516 wrote:OliverFA has been working on a new XML Tutorial which covers (I think) the latest XML updates:
viewtopic.php?f=205&t=142787
Comments welcomed here: viewtopic.php?f=205&t=141794
I hope you find something of interest there, DiM. Welcome back!

your links do not works for me. it says: You are not authorised to read this forum.
thanks for the welcome

Oh, heck. I think it must be open only to members of the "[Official] Foundry Projects" group. If you are interested in returning to a higher level of activity here in the forum, perhaps MrBenn could add you to the group. The "[Official] Map Surveyors" group might also be of interest, and is open to anyone.

thanks for the info ender. i have no idea where and how i can find and join usergroups but i'll look into that.

Go to control panel > usergroups