[Abandoned] - World 3.0

[DiM]

Just bcuz it's different doesn't make the idea good. And I do have to play it on random. The more crap maps that get added the more crap maps I have to play, so it does affect me. And me not playing random is a silly suggestion, I'm going to stop playing for medals or inbrandom tournaments bcuz of one map? Really?

i guess it's just a matter of risk vs reward. and the only one that can give a proper answer is you. there are a lot of maps i don't like or i'm not even remotely attracted to (more than half of the quenched maps actually) so i decided not to play random simply because the risk is too high.
should i start petitioning lack to remove all those maps?

This is a place for feedback, I'm giving mine. I don't like the idea of another full world map no matter how many small tweaks to graphics territory or bonus structure to make it marginally diff you put in.

yeah this is a place for feedback but what you're doing is not feedback. or at least not constructive one.
saying "i don't like this map and i don't want it made because i might get it randomly" is not constructive.
this map is not marginally different that world 2.1. it's actually very different.

Your entitled to ur opinion and so am I. I like some of ur other maps and all I was tryig to say is:
1) I don't like the idea
2) time and energy can be used Bette elsewhere on something more original

1. very well. i'm not expecting everybody to fall on their backs in complete ecstasy at the sight of this map. just like any other map it will have people that love it and people that hate it.
2. time and energy are plentiful. if the foundry provided the right conditions i could produce a map per week from start to quench with absolutely no problem so don't worry about it.

[AndyDufresne]

yeah this is a place for feedback but what you're doing is not feedback. or at least not constructive one.
saying "i don't like this map and i don't want it made because i might get it randomly" is not constructive.
this map is not marginally different that world 2.1. it's actually very different.

While it isn't constructive feedback, it is still instructive feedback. I.E. This map doesn't meet my tastes, which is still a form of feedback since obviously as a player on CC, he is a part of the audience.


--Andy

[IcePack]

Nope I never said to start petitioning ones I don't like out of the map list. What I did say was I am going to become more vocal about keeping ones I don't like out of that group tho. But if YOU feel like petitioning lack to do so, please feel free! That's not my goal however.

My constructive feedback is not to do the map. We have one that we obviously disagree on how similar it is or isn't. A matter of perspective I suppose.

As far as pumping out a map per week - I'd much prefer quality and uniqueness to mass production.

IcePack

[DiM]

yeah this is a place for feedback but what you're doing is not feedback. or at least not constructive one.
saying "i don't like this map and i don't want it made because i might get it randomly" is not constructive.
this map is not marginally different that world 2.1. it's actually very different.

While it isn't constructive feedback, it is still instructive feedback. I.E. This map doesn't meet my tastes, which is still a form of feedback since obviously as a player on CC, he is a part of the audience.


--Andy

true, but that's not the sort of feedback the foundry needs.
posts like "i hate/love this map" aren't helping the map progress.

[AndyDufresne]

yeah this is a place for feedback but what you're doing is not feedback. or at least not constructive one.
saying "i don't like this map and i don't want it made because i might get it randomly" is not constructive.
this map is not marginally different that world 2.1. it's actually very different.

While it isn't constructive feedback, it is still instructive feedback. I.E. This map doesn't meet my tastes, which is still a form of feedback since obviously as a player on CC, he is a part of the audience.


--Andy

true, but that's not the sort of feedback the foundry needs.
posts like "i hate/love this map" aren't helping the map progress.

I'll politely disagree. The Foundry I think does have a stake in regards to taking into account the types of maps that people think they want to play.

But this is getting off topic, so you can move this discussion to the Foundry Discussions if you'd like to keep it going.


--Andy

[IcePack]

Posts like mine "don't help map progress" but some maps shouldn't progress.

IcePack

[DiM]

Nope I never said to start petitioning ones I don't like out of the map list. What I did say was I am going to become more vocal about keeping ones I don't like out of that group tho. But if YOU feel like petitioning lack to do so, please feel free! That's not my goal however.

My constructive feedback is not to do the map. We have one that we obviously disagree on how similar it is or isn't. A matter of perspective I suppose.

my point was that your motives are something purely personal and subjective and your feedback is not constructive.
just by saying you don't like this map you won't achieve much. in fact i usually tend to completely ignore "i hate it" posts.
come and say what bothers you, and offer suggestions on improving the map. if those suggestions are reasonable and the general public agrees with them then the map maker tries to apply them.
also remember it's impossible to like all the maps that will ever be created so coming to the foundry to stop everything you don't like is absurd.
what if other people with completely different tastes than you come to stop the maps that you love?
the foundry's goal is to produce maps for all kinds of people, to satisfy all kinds of gameplay and game settings. this way everybody can find some maps that they love.

As far as pumping out a map per week - I'd much prefer quality and uniqueness to mass production.

the key words in what i said before are "the right conditions".
when it comes to actual photoshop work i'm reasonably fast and i don't spend dozens of hours to produce an update.
i can come up with a very decent map within 2-3 hours. then if the foundry gives me enough constructive feedback it won't take more than 1 hour per day to implement all the suggestions. within a week with lots of feedback the map would transform from decent to great and be ready for beta.
i'm lucky enough to have a job where i can spend a lot of time map making and i can also work at a good pace so time is really not an issue.
the only thing that's hindering my map making pace is the amount of feedback in the foundry. get 200 people in here to comment daily and you'll see great maps literally pouring as i'm not the only one that's stalled by lack of feedback. i think almost all map makers are wishing for more feedback givers so they can get more suggestions and improve the maps faster.

[IcePack]

1) I never said all maps must be in my taste or that I had to like them all. If there is something about it that's diff I won't be commenting like I have here, or argue if someone feels a way about a map I like.
2) If people disagre that the map has a unique enough aspect - great! But I have a voice and I'm using it. They can come in here to support it just as well.
3) my comment was IN MY OPINION it's to close to world 2.1. So if you want my constructive feedback - make SOME change to make it different enough to make me NOT be reminded of world 2.1. How about some other game element? Anything? Not just new territories or routes.

I'm new here (to the foundry) I can't comment on how much or how little comments are given. I'll be happy to start providing feedback on projects as time allows on those maps in which strike a cord, either strongly positive or negative.

IcePack

[DiM]

1) I never said all maps must be in my taste or that I had to like them all. If there is something about it that's diff I won't be commenting like I have here, or argue if someone feels a way about a map I like.
2) If people disagre that the map has a unique enough aspect - great! But I have a voice and I'm using it. They can come in here to support it just as well.
3) my comment was IN MY OPINION it's to close to world 2.1. So if you want my constructive feedback - make SOME change to make it different enough to make me NOT be reminded of world 2.1. How about some other game element? Anything? Not just new territories or routes.

I'm new here (to the foundry) I can't comment on how much or how little comments are given. I'll be happy to start providing feedback on projects as time allows on those maps in which strike a cord, either strongly positive or negative.

IcePack

you keep saying this isn't different from world 2.1 please tell me what's the same (aside from the similar graphics)

on World 3.0 you have COMPLETELY DIFFERENT terits, COMPLETELY DIFFERENT layout and connections, COMPLETELY DIFFERENT bonus scheme.

[IcePack]

It's still a world map, you've added / changed territories and routes and changing bonus bcuz new country layouts etc.

There isn't anything unique about it other than it's slightly changed so each country is on it instead of grouped which just makes the whole thing busy and difficult which is already an annoyance on world 2.1.

But I really don't think we are going to see eye to eye and just going to argue in circles, so I'll leave the map alone and let you and everyone else screw around with it.

I'm now realizing why nobody comments here, maybe I'll rethink my activity in foundry if stupid arguments like this when trying to give feedback.

IcePack

[DiM]

It's still a world map, you've added / changed territories and routes and changing bonus bcuz new country layouts etc.

do you even realize how stupid this sounds? it's like saying why do we have a usa map when we already have a map of portugal? it's just added/changed territories and routes and changing bonus because of new country layouts. but other than that it's still a country map, right?

so basically if i change the whole layout, and the terits, and the attack routes and the bonuses. i a word if i change EVERYTHING, for you it's the same map just because it is a world map. brilliant.

btw with that logic i'm actually surprised you're not protesting to ALL the maps being made.

world 2.1 is a bigger version of classic with different terits, attack routes, bonuses. by your logic it should never have been made, right?

usa appears in a lot of maps. and in many of them even the terit layout is similar. who's are the idiots that allowed this?

europe has several maps too. it's ludicrous.

the maps in the age of realms trilogy have roughly the same layout. who cares if the gameplay is completely different, they're stupid.

egypt has 4 maps. outrageous. who wants 4 maps of the same country?

rail maps? don't even get me started. one is enough, recycling that idea is horrendous.

and most of the other maps are also variations on the classical recipe of a region map. pff we should scrap them all.

[IcePack]

Again I don't think we r ever going to agree. You don't see what I'm trying to say at all.
Enjoy making more maps with no new feedbackfrom me, I'm out! This is silly and a waste of my time. My comments aren't clear to you apparently and your just getting defensive. Nothing productive is occurring here.

IcePack

[natty dread]

Ok, I think I see what is happening here.

- Icepack: you're not actually giving any specific suggestions to the map, you're just saying you don't want this map to be made, that you don't like it. Fair enough, that's your opinion, but why do you have to argue about it? What exactly do you want the mapmaker to say? "Fine, I'll stop making this map"? That'd be kinda stupid. No mapmaker is going to abandon a project based on one person's dislike.

- DiM: I don't think you should be arguing with him either. Although he's not giving constructive feedback, he is stating his dislike of a map idea, and that should also be allowed. Nothing to worry about. If dozens of more people come in and tell you they hate the map, or if no one comes to give positive feedback at all, then you have cause to concern... but if one or two people say they hate it, you can just be like "fine, thanks for your opinion" and continue, there's no need to make an argument out of it.

[natty dread]

I just think having the territories mostly evenly sized makes for a more immersive gaming experience. With a map that dogmatically adheres to the "1 country, 1 territory" idea, like Europa, you don't get the feeling of being in a massive war, with troops moving accross the board... it feels more like just crunching numbers in some kind of statistics job.

But again, this is just my personal opinion, and I'm sure you'll find people who are thrilled to have a geographically accurate world map to play.

i don't see how moving troops from western usa to eastern usa is immersive but moving them from usa to mexico is crunching numbers in a statistics job. it's the same thing. you just move troops from one terit to another regardless of how it's called.
i don't care if it says usa, paris, europe or even terit 1.
it's like saying feudal is not a good map because the terits have number names.

Well like I said, it's my personal opinion, you're free to disagree with it. I'm not stating this as absolute truth.

But I think the immersiveness comes from the idea of having a proper sense of scale. You have big countries and small countries on a map, and when the big country is divided to several territories, you can move troops inside the country, not just between countries... and that gives it a sense of realism - you can't just take a huge land mass in a single step when it happens to be a single country.

Even on Feudal: yes, you have numbered territories, but the territories are all roughly the same size. You have a sense of scale, a sense of realism, in that each step you take gets you a roughly similar sized piece of land to your realm. You can imagine how your troops are divided over that huge battlefield, with this area having that many troops, that area next to it having a little more, and the front lines having the most... that's where the immersion comes from, that's a large part of the fun in a map in my opinion.

Then again, I bet there are others who don't care about the immersion at all, who don't in fact see how anyone could speak of "immersion" in an online board game... Or they don't care about what the theme of the map is, and only care about the gameplay and how many points they can rack up on it.

[IcePack]

Ok, I think I see what is happening here.

- Icepack: you're not actually giving any specific suggestions to the map, you're just saying you don't want this map to be made, that you don't like it. Fair enough, that's your opinion, but why do you have to argue about it? What exactly do you want the mapmaker to say? "Fine, I'll stop making this map"? That'd be kinda stupid. No mapmaker is going to abandon a project based on one person's dislike.

- DiM: I don't think you should be arguing with him either. Although he's not giving constructive feedback, he is stating his dislike of a map idea, and that should also be allowed. Nothing to worry about. If dozens of more people come in and tell you they hate the map, or if no one comes to give positive feedback at all, then you have cause to concern... but if one or two people say they hate it, you can just be like "fine, thanks for your opinion" and continue, there's no need to make an argument out of it.

I'll try to give an example since I haven't been clear? I'm not just saying "I don't like it" a few posts back I said make something unique / different (though ur right I have no specific change suggestions). But he didn't want to talk he just argue that it's diff already etc

My point - USA does have a map, and was redone using "fractured america" same area but totally diff maps and product.

France also has France 1789(?) which is diff due to time frame changes. In my opinion the world 2.1 is a full world map
and this is only slightly different. My suggestion (generic tho it may be) was to create something unique about / around the world map idea beyond adding / changing territory counts and bonus areas.

Hope that helps, but not sure it will.

IcePack

[natty dread]

There's no bonus areas on this map. Every territory gets an autodeploy.

[IcePack]

There's no bonus areas on this map. Every territory gets an autodeploy.

I know but in my mind that's not a change in map just a change in set ups etc. Like if you or I were to take classic map and make it auto deploy and add a few extra territories, should that map get approved too?

IcePack

[DiM]

I'm not just saying "I don't like it" a few posts back I said make something unique / different (though ur right I have no specific change suggestions). But he didn't want to talk he just argue that it's diff already etc

but it IS different.

world 2.1 has big countries split into smaller regions, world 3.0 doesn't
world 2.1 has continent bonuses, world 3.0 doesn't
world 2.1 has a bonus for number of terits held, world 3.0 doesn't
the maps have a different number of terits
there are totally different connections
world 2.1 has no autodeploy
the strategies will be completely different. (for example if you manage to hold the usa and canada in world 2.1 you get a nice bonus of 7 plus whatever you get for the number of terits you own. in world 3.0 if you hold usa and canada you get just a +2.


again, aside from the fact that they are both world maps please show me one thing they have in common from a gameplay point of view.

[natty dread]

There's no bonus areas on this map. Every territory gets an autodeploy.

I know but in my mind that's not a change in map just a change in set ups etc. Like if you or I were to take classic map and make it auto deploy and add a few extra territories, should that map get approved too?

Possibly. It's an entirely different gameplay, I'm not necessarily saying if it's a good or bad one, but you can't argue it isn't different.

[IcePack]

There's no bonus areas on this map. Every territory gets an autodeploy.

I know but in my mind that's not a change in map just a change in set ups etc. Like if you or I were to take classic map and make it auto deploy and add a few extra territories, should that map get approved too?

Possibly. It's an entirely different gameplay, I'm not necessarily saying if it's a good or bad one, but you can't argue it isn't different.

Ok - if adding a few territory and routes to classic and changing from bonus structure to autodeploy is enough to get a map thru, f*ck it I'll start making maps. It'll be pretty easy then and we can have two of everything all slightly modified with different bonus structures.

HOW FUN! If that really is all it takes, then I clearly have no argument here.

DiM - create away! I sgguest classic next, Hawaii, Cuba, Easter islands etc are easy add ons to create a wholly new map. :/

IcePack

[natty dread]

Ok - if adding a few territory and routes to classic and changing from bonus structure to autodeploy is enough to get a map thru

No, it isn't enough to get a map through. The map also needs to have support from the community, and a capable mapmaker who is able to bring it up to CC standards.

Look, no one is telling you you shouldn't come over to map threads and give your opinion/feedback. That's really commendable. But you can't get all butthurt if people disagree with you, or challenge your views, or ask you to defend your argument. Giving and receiving feedback is a two-way interaction, you can't just waltz in and say "hey, I have an opinion, everyone listen to me!" You have to be willing to honestly participate in the discussion with the mapmakers and the other commentators.

[IcePack]

Sure, but him actively complaining "nobody gives feedback" and then bitch slapping somebody making some of their first foundry comments (whether we agree or disagree) is fine.

My point was getting across - that's fine but there are much BETTER ways to ask for clarification then how it got handled if you wish to elicit feedback. I'm fine with people disagreeing with me I said that awhile ago.

I guess my point was it wasn't changed enough. If you / he feels it is, wonderful. We disagree.

Cheers,
IcePack

[Industrial Helix]

Well, I'm liking this idea, but I'm wondering how exactly you intend to fit numbers AND names on some of those places... Africa and SE Asia look especially problematic.

[Boler]

I would find distances confusing, for example, it is technically the same distance from Angola, through a tiny strip of Nambia, to Botswana, as it is from Poland, attacking Kalingrad, which is technically part of Russia, and then subsequently attacking from Russia to Alaska, which is technically part of the United States. So Poland to the United States is a massive distance in an extremely short route.

On an unrelated note, you must of been using an older map when creating this. Sudan has recently been divided into two new countries, Sudan, and South Sudan, officially. Check out Google Earth or Wikipedia if you want to see.

[natty dread]

Sure, but him actively complaining "nobody gives feedback" and then bitch slapping somebody

Where exactly is the bitch slapping? Dim isn't always the most socially functional mapmaker, and neither am I for that matter, but I don't see that there has been any overly rude or mean comments in this thread.

Like I said: feedback, like any other communication, is a two-way street. You only get from it as much as you give to it.

I would find distances confusing, for example, it is technically the same distance from Angola, through a tiny strip of Nambia, to Botswana, as it is from Poland, attacking Kalingrad, which is technically part of Russia, and then subsequently attacking from Russia to Alaska, which is technically part of the United States. So Poland to the United States is a massive distance in an extremely short route.

This is exactly what I was talking about... this is one reason why I think the idea of using "countries & countries only" as territories is flawed. But then again, others like it so...