Difficulty ratings for maps

[captainwalrus]

Concise description:

• Rate each map based on difficulty in gameplay, then put this rating next to the map on the browse map page.

Specifics:

• Take a bunch of volunteers who have all played a lot of games. Have them agree on how difficult a map is. Give it like diamond system (like skiing) or something based on what the group decides. Then put these ratings somewhere that someone will notice them before they join or start a game on any given map.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• Easy farming opportunities will be limited. Noobs can't be lured into a game now without knowing the map is very difficult.
• It makes it so that new players can advance at their own level, instead of having to put in a system where certain maps are unlocked to them as they progress. If they think they can handle a triple diamond map, let them try. If they find it too hard, they can go back to the easier maps.

[army of nobunaga]

this is actually not to bad of an Idea.. Easier to implement than most too.

[army of nobunaga]

You couldnt take volunteers though.. Everyone has their favorite map that they love to see cooks enter. For me its Feudal, cooks come in, make things messy, I clean up.

I think this initiative would have to come from the map makers themselves, most of which do not carry a high rank.

[wolfpack0530]

You couldnt take volunteers though.. Everyone has their favorite map that they love to see cooks enter. For me its Feudal, cooks come in, make things messy, I clean up.

I think this initiative would have to come from the map makers themselves, most of which do not carry a high rank.

I think volunteers could work. I would volunteer to rank maps like this. When ranking the maps as far as 'hardness' goes, i would consider 3 things as I am keep new players in mind!

1) How difficult is this map to play with BOB, vs without BOB. To me, forbidden kingdom, waterloo, maybe WWII Ardennes and maybe Bamboo Jack would rate at 4-5 stars in this category. difficult to infer connectivity. Pro Chicago gives me a hard time in this regard as well. (By the way, these are the only maps that i EVER use BOB on) Most new recruits dont use BOB.

2) How difficult was this map to grasp for me the very first time I played it? All of us with 2000+ games under our belt are 'experts' at a few maps that we have lots of experience on. now these maps are 'easy'. But as a judge, i would try and remember how hard the map was the first time i played it.

3) How many games did it take me to feel that i have a good understanding of basic and then advanced strategy on a certain map. Some maps seem impossible the first time you play them, but once you get the hang of them, you may learn them in a single game. These maps would rate as 'easier' to me compared to a map that took me 25 games on it to get the hang of it.

Conquest maps are a good example of this as well. it took me 30 games of feudal and some coaching by better players for me to learn good feudal strategy. But once i had learned 'good feudal strategy' i was able to learn New World in 3 games. But i would still rate New World and Feudal as roughly equal in difficulty. Now if i wanted to compare New World with Midgard (took me 3 games to learn basic strat on that map), then i would rate New World as much harder than Midgard, because i would take into account the 30 feudal games, and not just say it took me 3 games to learn both midgard and new world.

What do you think? Does my argument hold water? Are there other criteria to consider?

[captainwalrus]

As long as you have enough people doing it that you can get a pretty good agreement on everything, then volunteers would work. Perhaps by comparing everything to one map, classic for example, you could do it more objectively. It is easier to analyze how much harder something is than something else than to just come up with a number.