Jury Discussion- POLL

[the.killing.44]

What you said's all true, but when you first made the Oakland - Graphic Novel map:

OP - by oaktown » Sun Dec 14, 2008 7:25 pm
1 - by the.killing.44 » Sun Dec 14, 2008 7:27 pm
2 - by qwert » Sun Dec 14, 2008 7:29 pm
3 - by MrBenn » Sun Dec 14, 2008 7:42 pm
4 - by ZeakCytho » Sun Dec 14, 2008 7:46 pm
5 - by Incandenza » Mon Dec 15, 2008 1:22 am
6 - by cairnswk » Mon Dec 15, 2008 2:19 am
7 - by bbqpenguin » Mon Dec 15, 2008 11:30 am
8 - by OnlyAmbrose » Mon Dec 15, 2008 11:59 am
9 - by RjBeals » Mon Dec 15, 2008 12:04 pm
10 - by Natewolfman » Mon Dec 15, 2008 12:15 pm
11 - by whitestazn88 » Mon Dec 15, 2008 10:09 pm

.44

[oaktown]

What you said's all true, but when you first made the Oakland - Graphic Novel map...

was that me, the map, or the idea? hard to say.

I think that it could be said that some mapmakers begin with more polished drafts than others, and thus are able to attract more attention early on. That particular map (Oakland) started out pretty cool looking - if I do say so myself - though I'm not sure I have the skills to take it where I would like it to eventually go. RjBeals and Widowmakers have both made first drafts that look about as good as many mapmakers' final drafts; the Centrescape competition is an excellent example - both Rj and Widow had very finished-looking entries.

I certainly don't mean to toot my own horn - I've had many absolutely awful looking first drafts. (Los Angeles? What was I thinking?!?) But having quenched a few maps and abandoned many more I've figured a lot out and put a lot of mistakes behind me. I can throw together a simple first draft in under an hour that still has smooth borders, clean text, and good territory spacing. Taking that first draft the extra yard and making it quenchable is still a ton of work.

[mibi]

You can't make a pie with robot arms.

[RjBeals]

You can't make a pie with robot arms.

eh.. you're losing it mibi.

[The Neon Peon]

the.killing.44, can you please stop pointing out every map thread that gets abandoned or not posted it?

Let's face it, not every map is good, and not every map is interesting to everyone, so please stop going around and saying "the foundry is dead" in every post then pointing out maps that have no more needed to be done to them.

It is like complaining that no one is posting in a thread where all they are doing is waiting for a gameplay element to be added to the xml. If a map is not good, no one posts. If no one is interested in a map, no one posts, if the map is dead then certain people should just face the truth that the map is not going to meet the standards which are set.

Sorry about being rude, but this is really starting to tick me off.

[the.killing.44]

You're really missing my point …
I'm not saying the Foundry is dead map-wise — quite the opposite, as the newest maps that keep coming in and out better as they come — I'm saying that the Foundry is losing the comments that it had, like I pointed out from May '08.

.44

[The Neon Peon]

You're really missing my point …
I'm not saying the Foundry is dead map-wise — quite the opposite, as the newest maps that keep coming in and out better as they come — I'm saying that the Foundry is losing the comments that it had, like I pointed out from May '08.

.44

That is what I am talking about.

You show examples of dead maps and then complain that they are not getting enough comments... seriously...

[the.killing.44]

Once again, no.

I am saying that in May, there were comments coming onto maps in magnitude like I pointed out using examples from May. Now, the Foundry has slowed down comments-wise on new maps. I am not pointing out that there should be a ton of comments on a Quenched map or a Vacationed/Abandoned one, but rather that in maps in progress (especially new ones) there isn't the feedback by number of posters nor number of posts that there were previously.

.44

[The Neon Peon]

Once again, no.

I am saying that in May, there were comments coming onto maps in magnitude like I pointed out using examples from May. Now, the Foundry has slowed down comments-wise on new maps. I am not pointing out that there should be a ton of comments on a Quenched map or a Vacationed/Abandoned one, but rather that in maps in progress (especially new ones) there isn't the feedback by number of posters nor number of posts that there were previously.

.44

I quite disagree. The amount of comments you get is solely up to the map maker.

You pointed out some very good maps, and they got a lot of comments. Now look at the Balcans map... growing more than a page a day. Look at the Jamaca map, also got many comments so far, your own example of Oakland's map which was just a month back, Gallipoli and Gilgamesh get 2 comments a day, and then there are several more replies in every active thread within the main foundry when I log on.

There are plenty of comments going around by more and more people.

[the.killing.44]

I agree on some points and disagree on others. For one, I pointed out oak's map because I was saying that CAs' maps get comments because of the blue and what comes with that. Yes, the Balkans map is very active (and I'm a part of that). And of course, maps get more and more comments as they progress (but that's a different issue).

However, you did state some false things. For one, the last comment on Gallipoli was on January 19th by cairns himself — a week ago. The last comment on Gilgamesh was on January 22nd, four days ago. So that comment itself is false. Now to contradict that, what I was pointing out was the amount of feedback OPs get, which is what I said from Oakland and Pearl Harbor. That applies to all the maps you said — Gallipoli (slowed down), Gilgamesh (slowed down), and Jamaica (still in its beginnings). But no, we do not know what will happen to Jamaica.

But, you were right on one thing — the amount of comments is up to the maker (to an extent). Gilg. and Gall. have slowed down because there have been no updates. And the opposite applies to Jamaica, where it is in its first stages so obviously the versions are in the lowest numbers.

But like Incandenza said on Poison Rome:

Hell, no one gets tons of responses in their map threads any more. … Remember when you started, it was basically you, me, and yeti for like 3 pages...

.44

[wcaclimbing]

More maps in development = less comments per map.
Makes sense to me. The foundry isn't dead.

There needs to be some sort of set process for the formation of maps, not just they advance as the CAs deem it time. I think there needs to be standards set.

There is a process. It just isn't being followed for some of the maps in development.

Map Idea
All maps start life in the foundry as an idea in the "Map Ideas" sub forum. Here maps must gain their ideas stamp before being moved into full production in the main foundry.

Drafts Stamp:
1)The map, first and foremost, must have some sort of clear plan of how production will go
2) Have a playable image. If we quenched it people should be able to play on it. This should included the following:

Territory names
Working legends
Speculative Bonuses
Tentative Border Divisions

3) The working image needs to be beyond rough draft state. This means that you must provide the following:

A working image done in some kind of graphic software. Pencil drawn images and images done on paint will not be accpected.
Two quality updates must be provided.

4) Have honest and interested discussion. Not just you and three friends.

[the.killing.44]

If we go by that description of the Draft stamp, there would be a ton more maps in the Foundry Proper or at least in Adv. Draft stage. Good thing?

.44

[LED ZEPPELINER]

i say that it will get maps moving faster, but it might add to the work of mods and others

[oaktown]

You're really missing my point … I'm saying that the Foundry is losing the comments that it had, like I pointed out from May '08.

Wait, then you turned around and gave an example from just one month ago (the Oakland thread) in which there were a ton of posts in the first day. So the activity isn't dropping, it's just that some maps don't get the same level of activity as the example you gave from last May, while others have.

The requirements to graduate from the Drafting Room is a problem. At first glance they are quite objective, but if you look at the wording they actually allow for a good deal of subjectivity: two quality updates must be provided (what's a quality update?), interested discussion (how much interest, and from how many people?), etc. If you ask me, the standards for getting out of Drafts need to be more explicitly subjective, not less. A map can have all of the things needed to be playable but still look like crap.

Anyhow, I'm kicking around an idea that will make the Drafts process more democratic and transparent... more to come.

[the.killing.44]

Wait, then you turned around and gave an example from just one month ago (the Oakland thread) in which there were a ton of posts in the first day. So the activity isn't dropping, it's just that some maps don't get the same level of activity as the example you gave from last May, while others have.

Yes, but that was to my point about CAs' threads getting more comments … which led to the point that v1s get comments but slow down … which led to the (concurred) point that it is partly up to the maker for comments.

Anyway, I agree with your points on the Drafting Room

.44