Drafts / Design Briefs [Discussion]

Topics that are not maps. Discuss general map making concepts, techniques, contests, etc, here.

Moderators: Cartographers, Global Moderators

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Drafts / Design Briefs [Discussion]

Postby OliverFA on Sat Jul 02, 2011 1:38 pm

natty_dread wrote:Porkenbeans, it's not like graphics of the map are not being developed during the GP stage... or that GP workshop is only meant for gameplay development. That's not how it works currently, nor has ever worked I think.

You should more think of the gameplay stage as simply "the period when the gameplay is open" and GFX as "the period when the gameplay is closed". The GP and GFX stamps are like achievement badges: before the GP stamp, both GP and GFX are being developed, and once you get the GP stamp, it's an achievement that says "gameplay is fine now, no need to work on it anymore". After which you work on graphics only.

Which makes sense, since some things (like small map, xml, etc.) should not be started until you're sure the gameplay is relatively static.

But maps should be about the gameplay, and gameplay should be the first priority. After all, the prettiest map in the world is no use if it plays like total crap. The majority of CC players are much more willing to forgive sub-par graphics than they are to forgive sub-par gameplay (as long as the map is readable).


I agree. Of course, pretty graphics are important. But it's good gameplay what makes a map played again and again. As long as the gameplay can be understood of course...

And about the process being too directed... don't see that as a restriction. Say that as a guideline. Even the best artist has to start somewhere and follow some flow. Even the art has some method. The important thing is that the Foundry process serves as a guide, not as restriction.

Also, Foundry Staff has to evaluate the map somehow. So at the end things need to get formalized. Not too much formalized, but formalized to some degree. A few milestones need to be there, and a few key conditions that a "valid map" needs to have, also need to be there.
Welcoming the long awaited Trench Warfare Setting (Previously Adjacent Attacks).

My Maps:
Research and Conquer - Civilization meets Conquer Club

Best score: 2,346 - Best position: #618 - Best percentile: 4.87%
User avatar
Corporal OliverFA
 
Posts: 2361
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:30 am
Location: Somewhere in Spain
Medals: 32
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1)
Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (2) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1)
Clan Achievement (3) Training Achievement (1) Tournament Contribution (2) General Contribution (5)

Re: Drafts / Design Briefs [Discussion]

Postby OliverFA on Sat Jul 02, 2011 1:54 pm

porkenbeans wrote:Like usual you do not understand what I am talking about, but still feel the need to contradict me.

You are wrong nat. I can not tell you how many times that I have commented on a GFX element in GP workshop, only to be told that it will have to wait until the map hits GFX Workshop. But then if I DO wait for a map to hit GFX before I comment on GFX, The mapmaker and the fans of the map that have been loyally following it, are very reluctant to consider every little change. They have been accustomed to the gfx on the map as it is.


Well that seems to be an issue with the current system. Porkenbeans, I think it would be good if you reported this to help the Foundry Staff fixing this and making the process better with time ;)

porkenbeans wrote:When I talk about the lower quality maps being produced, I am referring to the GFX specifically. My contention is that the poor artwork IS the squeaky wheel in this scenario. I believe that the creative process is being stifled by too much rigidness and order. If you were any kind of artist, you would understand just what I am talking about here.

I talk about both things, but I am more willing to forgive a regular GFX than a regular Gameplay. Plus it's much more easier to create V2 of the GFX keeping the same gameplay. As I said, having the Classic map again and again with different graphics is not my idea of a map library. But of course I suppose it depends on your personal background. I pay a lot more attention to gameplay than to graphics.

So the conclusion is both things need to have a minimum level.

porkenbeans wrote:There is also one more thing that I would like to say on the subject of the GP Workshop. Why is it that people carrying the rank of Cook or Corp. are always the ones that seem to fill the GP Workshop ?
You talk about how important the GP is, but let the people in charge of putting it together, have only a novice understanding of how to play the game. It seems to me that you would enlist people with a superior understanding of the game, to work on this aspect of it. Just as you would want the best artists creating what it looks like.

Well I think there is a clear reason for it. This game (as any game) needs some practice to master. And if you spend your time mapmaking (or commenting) you don't get that practice.
Welcoming the long awaited Trench Warfare Setting (Previously Adjacent Attacks).

My Maps:
Research and Conquer - Civilization meets Conquer Club

Best score: 2,346 - Best position: #618 - Best percentile: 4.87%
User avatar
Corporal OliverFA
 
Posts: 2361
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:30 am
Location: Somewhere in Spain
Medals: 32
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1)
Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (2) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1)
Clan Achievement (3) Training Achievement (1) Tournament Contribution (2) General Contribution (5)

Re: Drafts / Design Briefs [Discussion]

Postby DiM on Sat Jul 02, 2011 2:27 pm

graphics are VERY important in all aspects of a map. from start to finish to number of games played. if i see a map with a paint-made draft i won't even bother giving it feedback and i'm not the only one that thinks like this. obviously without people giving it feedback there's a big chance that map will also have a bad gameplay. and porkenbeans is right many people cling to the idea that if a map is in gameplay only gameplay related feedback should be considered or that if a map already got a graphics badge nothing needs to be changed. this is wrong. any change should be done at any time (if it's reasonable and validly supported)

OliverFA is also right. gameplay should always come first but not at the expense of graphics. i don't care if your map is god's gift to the people, if it looks like crosswords i won't play it so at least an above average graphics level is needed.
why i say above average and not just average? well, simply because i think maps should continuously evolve both regarding the gameplay as well as graphics. standing still is bad and going backwards is even worse.
“In the beginning God said, the four-dimensional divergence of an antisymmetric, second rank tensor equals zero, and there was light, and it was good. And on the seventh day he rested.”- Michio Kaku
Image
User avatar
Major DiM
 
Posts: 10554
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 6:20 pm
Location: making maps for scooby snacks
Medals: 45
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2) Assassin Achievement (2)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (4) General Achievement (4) Map Contribution (10)
Tournament Contribution (4) General Contribution (3)

Re: Drafts / Design Briefs [Discussion]

Postby natty dread on Sat Jul 02, 2011 2:45 pm

porkenbeans wrote:You are wrong nat. I can not tell you how many times that I have commented on a GFX element in GP workshop, only to be told that it will have to wait until the map hits GFX Workshop. But then if I DO wait for a map to hit GFX before I comment on GFX, The mapmaker and the fans of the map that have been loyally following it, are very reluctant to consider every little change. They have been accustomed to the gfx on the map as it is.


No, porkenbeans, the reason why so few people take your graphical suggestions is that 90% of the time your suggestions are purely crap.

I don't see a lot of mapmakers who are unwilling to take graphical advice in the foundry. Mapmakers should take all reasonable advice, it doesn't mean they should do every idiotic thing some guy suggests.

porkenbeans wrote:The piss-poor looking maps that you and others have unleashed upon the members, is evidence that I might be on to something, ...don't ya think ?


The countless piss-poor looking maps you've tried to make that failed because you were too stubborn to take anyone's advice are evidence of your judgement not being too trustworthy in this case. You already think you know everything about graphics design, so you refuse to listen when someone tries to tell you when you do something wrong. Then you go on giving crappy advice to others, because you like to think yourself a natural artist.

You always think there's this huge conspiracy to keep your maps from being quenched, or that some foundry mod has something personal against you. Even when you lose a graphics contest, you start blaming other contestants for rigging the vote, because you just can't accept the fact that you aren't the artistic genius you think you are.

In order to become good at something, you first need to admit that you're bad, then you can start learning. And then, when you have learned, you can start advising others.

porkenbeans wrote: If you were any kind of artist, you would understand just what I am talking about here.


Oh, I'm not quite pretentious enough to call myself an "artist". My goal is to make maps that look good, are easily readable and fun to play. That's it.

And I understand exactly what you're talking about. It still doesn't mean that you're right about it.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class natty dread
 
Posts: 13324
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:58 pm
Location: just plain fucked
Medals: 49
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Ratings Achievement (3) General Achievement (12) Map Contribution (12) General Contribution (7)

Re: Drafts / Design Briefs [Discussion]

Postby TaCktiX on Sat Jul 02, 2011 3:27 pm

Based on the comments of cairns, natty, DiM, and Oliver, here's my thoughts, prefaced by a graphic:

Image
Generally speaking, these are the major foci I've seen. We've got commenters who focus purely on graphics or gameplay (not a bad thing), with a few who dabble in both. The problem is that there are many more graphical commenters than there are gameplay ones. So in most cases, maps will have the Typical bar: a minimal focus on gameplay except by the few dedicated to it, and a LOT of visual commenting. This is much different from the ideal 60/40 split that I am going to advocate.

A good gameplay that is easy to understand and simple to execute (within the bounds of what kind of map that the mapmaker is aiming for, 'course) makes graphics far easier to do. And a poorly-balanced map is never fun to play while a graphically-inferior map with great gameplay can be acceptable (consider all the older maps on CC that DO have great gameplay but are way behind later maps graphically speaking). So while being able to say "wow, that's just beautiful" is awesome, it shouldn't be what everyone aims to do.

Consider my present map R&C. It's a lovely reversal of the 90-10 in my humble and very biased opinion. The graphics were at the minor nitpick stage while page after page after page of gameplay feedback was written up with possibilities, considerations, and scenarios. Even after a Gameplay stamp, that commenting still went on. Is the map the most beautiful on CC? Hell no, but it fits a theme just fine and is pretty without being distractingly glamorous. A LOT is going on the map, so a dedication to glitz would've made it very difficult to comprehend (even further than its new gameplay type).

So to sum it up: gameplay is timeless comparative to graphics. We need to focus in more on what will likely stick around instead of always chasing the glamor crown.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class TaCktiX
 
Posts: 2393
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 8:24 pm
Location: Rapid City, SD
Medals: 37
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (3) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2)
Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (2) Map Contribution (1)
Tournament Contribution (4) General Contribution (6)

Re: Drafts / Design Briefs [Discussion]

Postby Victor Sullivan on Sat Jul 02, 2011 6:50 pm

Well, that was an enjoyable read :) I'll briefly state that I think TaCktiX's analysis seems near spot-on to me (of course, I'm kind of a gameplay geek myself, too), but! I think we're straying away from the original intent of the thread: the design brief system.

It seems to me, we've all reached the general consensus that Design Briefs should be reviewed by a team (instead of the Foreman, though possibly involving the Foreman in some way), then analyzed based on concept and what have you, then post why the design brief was rejected (i.e. "I'm not sure X works too well with Y and Z in this case.") or give the stamp, saying "Yup, you're good to go because you have a complete and fresh concept and design."

Is that a fair summary?

If so, I'd be interested in seeing MrBenn's thoughts on the matter.

-Sully
User avatar
Corporal Victor Sullivan
 
Posts: 7175
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 8:17 pm
Location: Columbus, OH
Medals: 45
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (3) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (1)
General Achievement (9) Map Contribution (4) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (6)

Re: Drafts / Design Briefs [Discussion]

Postby OliverFA on Sun Jul 03, 2011 5:48 am

My personal opinion is that becoming the foreman (or a Foundry Assitant as per the recent calling) is a compromise. That's why they are in charge of the autocratic decision. With compromise comes power. And with power comes compromise. Of course, regular Foundry member's voice has to be listened.

Also, rejecting the draft is not rejecting the map. Is rejecting that particular version. So if the draft is remade/ammended/improved it has another chance.

It's important to give the reason why it is rejected. That in my opinion will address the concerns about the autocratic foreman. Autocrats are not good at explaining their choices.

An alternative could be having a 5 members team to review the draft. 2 members of the team could be volunteers from the Map Surveyors group. This would give a lot of power to non-Foundry staff, because if the 3 Foundry staff members reject the map it would be very unlikely that the reason would be personal taste or personal hate to the map maker.
Welcoming the long awaited Trench Warfare Setting (Previously Adjacent Attacks).

My Maps:
Research and Conquer - Civilization meets Conquer Club

Best score: 2,346 - Best position: #618 - Best percentile: 4.87%
User avatar
Corporal OliverFA
 
Posts: 2361
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:30 am
Location: Somewhere in Spain
Medals: 32
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1)
Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (2) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1)
Clan Achievement (3) Training Achievement (1) Tournament Contribution (2) General Contribution (5)

Re: Drafts / Design Briefs [Discussion]

Postby degaston on Sun Jul 03, 2011 8:19 am

Hey, here's a crazy idea... if people want maps with great game-play, then game-play should start as early in the process as possible. And when I say game-play, I mean actually playing the game, not just discussing the way someone thinks the game will play.

The way it works now is like creating a recipe without ever going into the kitchen. You decide on the ingredients, and presentation, and then once that's all nailed down you go make it and hope it tastes good. Not surprisingly, you get a lot of new maps that look and play just like existing maps because it takes too much work to get an innovative or risky idea through the process.

What is needed is a way for map makers to test maps themselves (a "solitaire" mode), and a way to create private unrated games using any jpg and XML That way, a map developer could come up with an idea, start with an XML and a very rough draft of the map, and try it out themselves to see what works and what doesn't before putting in a lot of effort making a pretty map that doesn't play well. Once they think it's playable, they can play with others and get instant feedback on both the game-play and graphics while the game is going on. They can then use this feedback to work on the next versions of the map and XML instead of just sitting around waiting for another comment in the foundry forum.

The new Map Foundry Forums could be:

1) Map Ideas - For people who come up with ideas that they want someone else to develop, or need a partner for some aspect.
2) Playground (combines Drafts, Gameplay and Graphics forums) - For any map with a jpg and a working XML. People can comment on any aspect of the map or game-play. Requests can be made for players willing to try it out in an unrated private game. (Maybe they could give out hazardous duty medals to those willing to try these out.)
3) Final Forge - Once all the issues have been dealt with in private games, put it up as a Beta for the general population to try.

I don't think that either of these playing features would be too difficult to implement from the existing code, and would even offer my programming services to make the changes.

Oh, this could also move the design brief to the end of the process. When a mapmaker feels that his map is essentially finished, he can submit a design brief or "Beta Application" to get the map moved to the Final Forge. This could save the moderators a lot of time by only having to review maps that are near completion.
User avatar
Colonel degaston
 
Posts: 400
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 10:12 am
Medals: 12
Standard Achievement (1) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) General Achievement (2)

Re: Drafts / Design Briefs [Discussion]

Postby DiM on Sun Jul 03, 2011 10:06 am

degaston wrote:What is needed is a way for map makers to test maps themselves (a "solitaire" mode), and a way to create private unrated games using any jpg and XML That way, a map developer could come up with an idea, start with an XML and a very rough draft of the map, and try it out themselves to see what works and what doesn't before putting in a lot of effort making a pretty map that doesn't play well. Once they think it's playable, they can play with others and get instant feedback on both the game-play and graphics while the game is going on. They can then use this feedback to work on the next versions of the map and XML instead of just sitting around waiting for another comment in the foundry forum.


as a map maker that never did a map with classic gameplay i often needed such a feature. a few years ago i used to print out my maps and play with friends but playing 1-2 games per week is nothing compared with what you could play if we had this implemented. unfortunately the fact that lack didn't implement this 3-4 years ago when it was asked makes me think it's not going to happen now either.

the possibility for a map maker to upload an image and a xml himself only for his map in progress and in a private area where such maps would be invisible would be mana from heaven. imagine playing a quick game, retweaking the xml, playing again, redoing some borders, playing again and so on.

keep dreaming.
“In the beginning God said, the four-dimensional divergence of an antisymmetric, second rank tensor equals zero, and there was light, and it was good. And on the seventh day he rested.”- Michio Kaku
Image
User avatar
Major DiM
 
Posts: 10554
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 6:20 pm
Location: making maps for scooby snacks
Medals: 45
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2) Assassin Achievement (2)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (4) General Achievement (4) Map Contribution (10)
Tournament Contribution (4) General Contribution (3)

Re: Drafts / Design Briefs [Discussion]

Postby OliverFA on Sun Jul 03, 2011 5:06 pm

A way to test maps before uploading them to the site would be great!!! :D

EDITED: Oh, and I forgot to say that I agree about Tacktix analysis!
Welcoming the long awaited Trench Warfare Setting (Previously Adjacent Attacks).

My Maps:
Research and Conquer - Civilization meets Conquer Club

Best score: 2,346 - Best position: #618 - Best percentile: 4.87%
User avatar
Corporal OliverFA
 
Posts: 2361
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:30 am
Location: Somewhere in Spain
Medals: 32
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1)
Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (2) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1)
Clan Achievement (3) Training Achievement (1) Tournament Contribution (2) General Contribution (5)

Re: Drafts / Design Briefs [Discussion]

Postby thenobodies80 on Mon Jul 04, 2011 4:28 am

porkenbeans wrote:You talk about how important the GP is, but let the people in charge of putting it together, have only a novice understanding of how to play the game.


Although I must admit that the gameplay workshop needs at least one more person to sort out things better, I can't consider valid the phrase quoted above. Could you please list these people in charge of putting together gameplay with only a novice understanding of the game? iancanton? MarshalNey? TaCktiX? Honestly I think that the people that's currently in charge in the gameplay workshop is exactly the opposite of what you're saying. (Obviously I'm referring to those who are officially in charge)

Give every man your ear, but few thy voice. Take each man's censure, but reserve thy judgment.
show
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class thenobodies80
 
Posts: 5558
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:30 am
Medals: 70
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Bot Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
General Achievement (8) Map Contribution (7) Tournament Contribution (6) General Contribution (17)

Re: Drafts / Design Briefs [Discussion]

Postby koontz1973 on Mon Jul 04, 2011 6:42 am

DiM wrote:
degaston wrote:What is needed is a way for map makers to test maps themselves (a "solitaire" mode), and a way to create private unrated games using any jpg and XML That way, a map developer could come up with an idea, start with an XML and a very rough draft of the map, and try it out themselves to see what works and what doesn't before putting in a lot of effort making a pretty map that doesn't play well. Once they think it's playable, they can play with others and get instant feedback on both the game-play and graphics while the game is going on. They can then use this feedback to work on the next versions of the map and XML instead of just sitting around waiting for another comment in the foundry forum.


as a map maker that never did a map with classic gameplay i often needed such a feature. a few years ago i used to print out my maps and play with friends but playing 1-2 games per week is nothing compared with what you could play if we had this implemented. unfortunately the fact that lack didn't implement this 3-4 years ago when it was asked makes me think it's not going to happen now either.

the possibility for a map maker to upload an image and a xml himself only for his map in progress and in a private area where such maps would be invisible would be mana from heaven. imagine playing a quick game, retweaking the xml, playing again, redoing some borders, playing again and so on.

keep dreaming.

Is this not the final forge part of the foundry. I know it is at the end where things get tweaked but having it at the beginning would probably be very cumbersome. Just look at how many drafts come and go. You would end up with people just posting drafts just to play on them with friends, saying look what I did.

Having it at the beginning and playing a few dozen games is no substitute to the beta play. Look at all the tweaks natty has done for Antarctica since it went beta.
Sergeant 1st Class koontz1973
 
Posts: 7538
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:57 am
Medals: 117
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (2)
Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (10) General Achievement (13) Clan Achievement (5) Map Contribution (12)
Tournament Contribution (31) General Contribution (10)

Re: Drafts / Design Briefs [Discussion]

Postby natty dread on Mon Jul 04, 2011 10:56 am

koontz1973 wrote:Is this not the final forge part of the foundry. I know it is at the end where things get tweaked but having it at the beginning would probably be very cumbersome. Just look at how many drafts come and go. You would end up with people just posting drafts just to play on them with friends, saying look what I did.


That's where the design brief system comes in.

Having it at the beginning and playing a few dozen games is no substitute to the beta play. Look at all the tweaks natty has done for Antarctica since it went beta.


It's not the same thing as what is being proposed.

With the current system, all the games on the beta maps are still public games, which makes certain things harder to change once the map is in play. For example, I could easily change things like bonus values, starting positions, neutrals etc. but making changes to the actual territories (adding or removing territories) is hard when there are already games in play of the map.

With a beta-testing system that would not be a part of the main site, it would be easier to test a map, you could do changes in it without messing up actual live games and pissing off lots of people. We could still also have a regular beta-period for maps, in case some flaws go uncatched.

I've never understood why lack is so reluctant to allow this. It wouldn't have to be a part of the main site, and only mapmakers and other beta-testers would need to have access to it. I know lack already has a test site that is not part of the main site, that works pretty much same as the main site, so it certainly is possible. Actually, someone could just do it without lack's help, there's nothing that prevents someone from putting up a site for mapmakers etc. where you can log in, upload your map image & xml and then playtest your map with people. Of course, it would be easiest for lack to do it, since he already has the code for it...
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class natty dread
 
Posts: 13324
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:58 pm
Location: just plain fucked
Medals: 49
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Ratings Achievement (3) General Achievement (12) Map Contribution (12) General Contribution (7)

Re: Drafts / Design Briefs [Discussion]

Postby koontz1973 on Mon Jul 04, 2011 12:26 pm

natty_dread wrote:
I've never understood why lack is so reluctant to allow this. It wouldn't have to be a part of the main site, and only mapmakers and other beta-testers would need to have access to it. I know lack already has a test site that is not part of the main site, that works pretty much same as the main site, so it certainly is possible. Actually, someone could just do it without lack's help, there's nothing that prevents someone from putting up a site for mapmakers etc. where you can log in, upload your map image & xml and then playtest your map with people. Of course, it would be easiest for lack to do it, since he already has the code for it...


How many map makers and beta testers will be needed to get a good level of games going to test all of the scenarios? Even with this, you will still get problems at beta stage.

I admit it would be good to have during the game play part of the foundry so maps can be tested at that stage (and only at that stage). So if a mod says do this, it can be tested. Then all of the little tweaks can be sorted, move on to graphics for a polish. You could then remove the final forge from the foundry.
Sergeant 1st Class koontz1973
 
Posts: 7538
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:57 am
Medals: 117
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (2)
Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (10) General Achievement (13) Clan Achievement (5) Map Contribution (12)
Tournament Contribution (31) General Contribution (10)

Re: Drafts / Design Briefs [Discussion]

Postby MrBenn on Mon Jul 04, 2011 5:30 pm

A play-testing area for mapmakers has been a long-time desire for foundry-goers, but one that does not look like ever becoming a reality. However, it should be noted that chipv's Map XML Wizard (http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=466&t=105494) does offer a very basic simulation feature. Otherwise, this is a discussion for another topic :P

It's interesting to see the direction that discussion has taken... I know that the "committee" concept, while good in principle, doesn't work (or at least it hasn't worked when we have trialled it before). One reason that I have wanted to have 2 CAs covering each phase of development is to try and ensure that no area of map development is the sole responsibility of one person - in order to eliminate some of the perceived bias.

In the same way, I think the "draft team" should be the ones who present the case for/against the draft, but leave it to the Foreman to make the final decision about whether or not the map should proceed, based upon his knowledge of maps that have tired/failed and gone before. When I was first in the CA role, I had responsibility for the drafting room... It's hard going in there, because lots of people have mediocre ideas and many more of them have poor execution of their ideas. The real challenge is to encourage those (first-time mapmakers) who show the spark of creativity to work towards a project which is likely to be well-received. For the experienced mapmaker, the challenge is to push them on to producing something better than before. The thing that kept me motivated, was the knowledge/belief that the CC standard is, and should be a high one. If the Foreman unjustly queries the quality of something, or shows undue bias, then it should be for his team to show him that he is wrong. In either case, the weight of responsibility should be with the Foreman - in the same way that the final Quench resides with the Foreman. In my mind, I think that the Draft Stamp should almost reflect the final-veto, except that a veto in the early stages will be much easier to give/receive than one at the end of a lengthy or arduous mapmaking process.
Image
PB: 2661 | He's blue... If he were green he would die | No mod would be stupid enough to do that
User avatar
Lieutenant MrBenn
Retired Team Member
 
Posts: 7049
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 9:32 am
Location: Off Duty
Medals: 67
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (2)
General Achievement (6) Clan Achievement (1) Map Contribution (7) Tournament Contribution (2) General Contribution (15)

Re: Drafts / Design Briefs [Discussion]

Postby MrBenn on Mon Jul 04, 2011 5:39 pm

The other way of thinking of it, is that the CAs/Foreman select which maps should be developed from the pool of ideas/drafts.... I think we must remember that mapmaking is not a right, rather it is a privilege and a responsibility.
Image
PB: 2661 | He's blue... If he were green he would die | No mod would be stupid enough to do that
User avatar
Lieutenant MrBenn
Retired Team Member
 
Posts: 7049
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 9:32 am
Location: Off Duty
Medals: 67
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (2)
General Achievement (6) Clan Achievement (1) Map Contribution (7) Tournament Contribution (2) General Contribution (15)

Re: Drafts / Design Briefs [Discussion]

Postby Victor Sullivan on Tue Jul 05, 2011 2:38 am

I don't doubt your judgement as Foreman (for the most part :P ). My main issue is that this requires a lot of work on your end, and up until recently, you were largely absent from the public map threads. My main doubts stem from your not being able to be speedy with your verdicts - the Foundry can't afford to be slowed down much more. Excuse my frankness, but you have to understand where I'm coming from.

-Sully
User avatar
Corporal Victor Sullivan
 
Posts: 7175
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 8:17 pm
Location: Columbus, OH
Medals: 45
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (3) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (1)
General Achievement (9) Map Contribution (4) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (6)

Re: Drafts / Design Briefs [Discussion]

Postby OliverFA on Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:09 pm

Do we have numbers about the current speed of the Forge?

It would be very interesting to see how many maps have been presented in the draft state, how many have passed, how many have been rejected, and the average time for this.

Those numbers would tell us a lot about. They would tell us if there is a problem, where that problem is, and probably tell us how to solve it.

In fact, most of this discussion has revolved abour our perception of the Foundry. Having numbers would be good because that would confirm our perceptions or show they are wrong.
Welcoming the long awaited Trench Warfare Setting (Previously Adjacent Attacks).

My Maps:
Research and Conquer - Civilization meets Conquer Club

Best score: 2,346 - Best position: #618 - Best percentile: 4.87%
User avatar
Corporal OliverFA
 
Posts: 2361
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:30 am
Location: Somewhere in Spain
Medals: 32
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1)
Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (2) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1)
Clan Achievement (3) Training Achievement (1) Tournament Contribution (2) General Contribution (5)

Re: Drafts / Design Briefs [Discussion]

Postby DiM on Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:43 pm

OliverFA wrote:Do we have numbers about the current speed of the Forge?

It would be very interesting to see how many maps have been presented in the draft state, how many have passed, how many have been rejected, and the average time for this.

Those numbers would tell us a lot about. They would tell us if there is a problem, where that problem is, and probably tell us how to solve it.

In fact, most of this discussion has revolved abour our perception of the Foundry. Having numbers would be good because that would confirm our perceptions or show they are wrong.


numbers are easy. just take a look at dates, #of replies, #of views, #of updates and you'll see that maps are being made at a much much slower pace now. fewer posts, fewer views, fewer updates and longer waiting times for maps.

how can a mapmaker keep his focus and dedication on a project if that project takes 1 year or more?

my steamworks map is barely 17 days old and i still feel this whole process is moving so damn slow. i can't even imagine what others might feel.

if i could start 20 maps at the same time i probably wouldn't be bothered by this because i'd constantly have a map on my hands to update or fiddle with. but i can't. i'm the kind of person that gets 100% into a project and does his best to finish it as fast and as good as possible before moving on to the next. plus i understand there's a 3 map limit per user...
“In the beginning God said, the four-dimensional divergence of an antisymmetric, second rank tensor equals zero, and there was light, and it was good. And on the seventh day he rested.”- Michio Kaku
Image
User avatar
Major DiM
 
Posts: 10554
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 6:20 pm
Location: making maps for scooby snacks
Medals: 45
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2) Assassin Achievement (2)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (4) General Achievement (4) Map Contribution (10)
Tournament Contribution (4) General Contribution (3)

Re: Drafts / Design Briefs [Discussion]

Postby DiM on Tue Jul 05, 2011 6:12 pm

i further looked at some of the map threads around here and the current system is definitely not working as it should.
some maps start out with a very decent draft, with clear thoughts, perspective, support and they also come with a lot of guarantee from the map maker himself and yet they spend ridiculous amounts of time either in the melting pot or in the draft room.

let's look at cairnswk's spanish armada map. it took 8 days for that map to be moved from the melting pot to the drafting room and god knows how long it's going to stay there until it's moved to gameplay. why? the map clearly has a future. people are discussing the gameplay already and by the time it reaches the gameplay subforum they'll probably be nitpicking the graphics. and bare in mind the map already looks better than some of the currently quenched maps.

another weird one is the game of thrones map. it took 2 weeks to get out of the melting pot despite clear support, a very nice draft with already good graphics and lots of discussion about gameplay.

yeah, if somebody just comes with an idea and exchanges a few thoughts with no working image it should stay in the melting pot. but once a map has a draft support and a committed map maker the map should be pushed forward. i don't care if neither cairns or bison king never submitted their design briefs, sometimes map makers just need a nudge in the right direction. surprise them and reward them for their work so far with a movement in the gameplay sub-forum, afterall in both map threads gameplay is the main topic right now.

at the same time along with these 2 maps we have several ones that are up to 5 months old. it's pretty clear to me that those maps aren't going anywhere if they haven't managed to escape the draft room in 5 months. so vacation them or move them to the recycle bin.

and while threads are being recycled maybe the whole foundry could use a clean-up. most sub-forums have maps where nobody posted in a LOT of time. either move them forward if they're worth it, or recycle them if they don't.
“In the beginning God said, the four-dimensional divergence of an antisymmetric, second rank tensor equals zero, and there was light, and it was good. And on the seventh day he rested.”- Michio Kaku
Image
User avatar
Major DiM
 
Posts: 10554
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 6:20 pm
Location: making maps for scooby snacks
Medals: 45
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2) Assassin Achievement (2)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (4) General Achievement (4) Map Contribution (10)
Tournament Contribution (4) General Contribution (3)

Re: Drafts / Design Briefs [Discussion]

Postby lostatlimbo on Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:19 pm

DiM wrote:how can a mapmaker keep his focus and dedication on a project if that project takes 1 year or more?

if i could start 20 maps at the same time i probably wouldn't be bothered by this because i'd constantly have a map on my hands to update or fiddle with. but i can't. i'm the kind of person that gets 100% into a project and does his best to finish it as fast and as good as possible before moving on to the next. plus i understand there's a 3 map limit per user...


Word.
User avatar
Lieutenant lostatlimbo
 
Posts: 1380
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 3:56 pm
Location: Portland, OR
Medals: 27
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1) Assassin Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (2)
Ratings Achievement (1) Tournament Achievement (2) General Achievement (2) Map Contribution (1) Tournament Contribution (8)

Re: Drafts / Design Briefs [Discussion]

Postby lostatlimbo on Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:46 pm

I see both sides of this. Mapmakers sometimes just need some feedback from the community to turn crap into gold. Other times, the process is hopeless and wasting everyone's time.

But once a draft is submitted, perhaps it is worth trying to address the weaknesses before dismissing it outright?

If a map has a very nice style/look, but poor gameplay concept - give it a trial in the gameplay workshop to see if that can be fixed by input.

If a map has a great concept, but looks terrible, give it a trial run in the graphics workshop to see if the community can help or if another designer wishes to help.

If, after the trial period, the primary issue has not shown progress, then it can be recycled.

That seems like a good way to keep crummy maps from spending too much time in the Drafting Room, but will keep open for the possibility that the proposed map is solid, but just needs a little direction. I think the people who have the best minds for Gameplay or Graphics probably spend the bulk of their "map-time" in those respective sub-forums and maybe pay little mind to those maps in the infant stages of the Draft room. But giving maps with some potential (but serious flaws) a quick look-over by those folks would be just what is needed?

I've had a couple maps get stalled in the Draft stages. They were well received (well Human Body anyway), but in that sub-forum, the suggestions for addressing issues was... limited. I wonder if the same people that
User avatar
Lieutenant lostatlimbo
 
Posts: 1380
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 3:56 pm
Location: Portland, OR
Medals: 27
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1) Assassin Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (2)
Ratings Achievement (1) Tournament Achievement (2) General Achievement (2) Map Contribution (1) Tournament Contribution (8)

Re: Drafts / Design Briefs [Discussion]

Postby DiM on Fri Jul 08, 2011 1:53 pm

DiM wrote:i think we should have 3 subforums:
1. map ideas/drafts - where people come and make a suggestion and propose a draft. this will have to be a rather hard place to get out of just as you pointed above.
2. maps in progress - where everything from graphics to gameplay or theme gets tackled and solved. no more mapmakers not wanting to implement graphics because they're in gameplay subforum or not wanting to change gameplay just because they moved on to graphics. it's a map maker's duty to channel his and his followers' focus onto what needs to be solved.
3. final forge/finished maps - final tweaks


now that the above suggestion was implemented i have a little beef with the sticky topics in main foundry workshop.
i think that maps which are close to final forge should be stickied there. right now we have sticky maps that haven;t even starte work on graphics. so leave all maps non-sticky as they can be easily differentiated from the coloured markers and sticky those that are really close to final forge.
“In the beginning God said, the four-dimensional divergence of an antisymmetric, second rank tensor equals zero, and there was light, and it was good. And on the seventh day he rested.”- Michio Kaku
Image
User avatar
Major DiM
 
Posts: 10554
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 6:20 pm
Location: making maps for scooby snacks
Medals: 45
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2) Assassin Achievement (2)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (4) General Achievement (4) Map Contribution (10)
Tournament Contribution (4) General Contribution (3)

Re: Drafts / Design Briefs [Discussion]

Postby natty dread on Fri Jul 08, 2011 1:57 pm

DiM wrote:
DiM wrote:i think we should have 3 subforums:
1. map ideas/drafts - where people come and make a suggestion and propose a draft. this will have to be a rather hard place to get out of just as you pointed above.
2. maps in progress - where everything from graphics to gameplay or theme gets tackled and solved. no more mapmakers not wanting to implement graphics because they're in gameplay subforum or not wanting to change gameplay just because they moved on to graphics. it's a map maker's duty to channel his and his followers' focus onto what needs to be solved.
3. final forge/finished maps - final tweaks


now that the above suggestion was implemented i have a little beef with the sticky topics in main foundry workshop.
i think that maps which are close to final forge should be stickied there. right now we have sticky maps that haven;t even starte work on graphics. so leave all maps non-sticky as they can be easily differentiated from the coloured markers and sticky those that are really close to final forge.


Agreed
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class natty dread
 
Posts: 13324
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:58 pm
Location: just plain fucked
Medals: 49
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Ratings Achievement (3) General Achievement (12) Map Contribution (12) General Contribution (7)

Re: Drafts / Design Briefs [Discussion]

Postby MrBenn on Fri Jul 08, 2011 2:43 pm

The point of the stickies is to focus maps which are on the brink of stamping, whether that be for gameplay or graphics. There's no reason to really complain about the graphics of a map with only a red stamp
Image
PB: 2661 | He's blue... If he were green he would die | No mod would be stupid enough to do that
User avatar
Lieutenant MrBenn
Retired Team Member
 
Posts: 7049
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 9:32 am
Location: Off Duty
Medals: 67
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (2)
General Achievement (6) Clan Achievement (1) Map Contribution (7) Tournament Contribution (2) General Contribution (15)

PreviousNext

Return to Foundry Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Login