Decline in map standards.

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: Decline in map standards.

Postby RjBeals on Sat Mar 03, 2012 11:01 am

natty dread wrote:And to avoid that we should get some more love & attention from the site admin. There's only so long people care to listen to promises that never come true...


This is the main reason for us leaving... well, not making maps for cc that is. Clearly I'm still posting here.
Image
User avatar
Private RjBeals
 
Posts: 2500
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 5:17 pm
Location: South Carolina, USA
Medals: 21
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1)
General Achievement (7) Map Contribution (6) General Contribution (2)

Re: Decline in map standards.

Postby thenobodies80 on Sat Mar 03, 2012 11:09 am

And it's a shame. I never was really part of your group...in fact you leaving was like a thunder from the sky for me. I just had the time to try the taste of the foundry but never had a chance to live it fully...:(
Anyway I'm not a guy who run away when difficulties or obstacles come...If I'm still here is because I really believe that there's a way to change the things. Hope a day I have the opportunity to send to you and few others a PM asking to "come back" (just spot here a bit more) because things are changed. I really miss some of you. :cry:

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
Foundry Foreman
Foundry Foreman
 
Posts: 5640
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: Decline in map standards.

Postby porkenbeans on Wed Apr 11, 2012 11:57 pm

BadgerJelly wrote:
thenobodies80 wrote:The last page and half is totally OFF TOPIC. Stop now, if you want to discuss about welcome new mapmakers, start a topic for that. =;

Back on the original discussion, koontz asked what do you think about this:

It has been said, and many agree with it, that the standards within the map making community for conquer club has declined over the past year or two. If, and this is a big if, is this true, and who is to blame for it and what can be done about it.


Now I know its you prepare yourself for a lambasting! :lol:

IT IS relevant to the topic mate. If potentially good artists are driven away then who knows what you're missing out on here ... you've even said so yourself in the past so you cannot have it both ways.

If he is referring purely about the STANDARD that is being let through then yeah its a bit more of a vague reference to the original thread. You know I am not here first and foremost on the site I'm else where and I have no reason to say anything here other than to help.

Maybe the standard has dropped (if it has!?), because there are less choices of maps to put through. Its all very well to say the standard should in theory stay the same but with 10 new maps in front of you or 5 what do you think the chances are in each case a better map will get through. Yeah more map makers more shit ... also more map makers more quailty.

Reply to this mapguy and I WILL NOT BITE and play your silly games ;)

I'm semi serious here so please don't get offended or I'll just laugh. btw you should try and get bigtardo to help Moon thingy ...

Enjoy guys! Its a great game love, peace and rapage to you all! LOVE YOU!! XX :P
Do you think that thenobodies is mapguy ? :lol: Guess again.
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant porkenbeans
 
Posts: 2546
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:06 pm
Medals: 19
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1)
Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4) General Achievement (3)
General Contribution (1)

Re: Decline in map standards.

Postby thenobodies80 on Thu Apr 12, 2012 2:48 am

no I'm not, I'm a bureaucrat or a politician.
But I know what you're....bye pb.

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
Foundry Foreman
Foundry Foreman
 
Posts: 5640
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: Decline in map standards.

Postby degaston on Thu Apr 12, 2012 3:29 am

koontz1973 wrote:
It has been said, and many agree with it, that the standards within the map making community for conquer club has declined over the past year or two. If, and this is a big if, is this true, and who is to blame for it and what can be done about it.


Sorry I missed this discussion when it was more relevant. I see you mentioned my map, Murder One (Clue), in your article and said that development stopped when the know how to carry on or community support fell away after time.

As I recall, the main reason I stopped working on it was because I felt that there was something important missing from the foundry. Namely, the ability to try out a map under development. This may not be necessary for a classic-style map with straightforward play, but for a relatively complicated map like mine that was going to use several of the special features, deciding on the "best" combination of territories, connections, neutrals, bonuses, objectives, etc. is not something that I think can be adequately resolved through a forum discussion.

There were a variety of conflicting suggestions made, and I would have like to have tried several of them to see what worked and what didn't. Unfortunately, the foundry requires that you choose one particular path, get the game-play for that path approved, tweak the graphics until everyone is happy, create the xml, and then finally you get a chance to actually play it. If the game-play turns out to be just so-so... oh well. You can tweak a few things here and there, but who in their right mind is going to go back and make major structural changes to the design of the game after doing all that graphics work? I suppose a few people may, but I don't have the patience for that kind of wasted effort. As a programmer, I know a poor development process when I see it.

Is it any wonder that the quality of maps has declined? Trying something unique carries too big a risk if the experiment fails. So map makers mostly have to stick with something that they know will work, and that everyone can understand without playing. The solution is obvious, fairly simple, and I've mentioned it before. Create a "sandbox" where anyone can plug in their jpg and xml map files and play a solitaire game or invite some friends for a no-points game. It shouldn't be very hard to modify the existing system to do this, but I don't have the time to create it from scratch.

So that's my 2¢. If it's ever implemented, I'd be happy to finish my map.
User avatar
Colonel degaston
 
Posts: 375
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: Decline in map standards.

Postby koontz1973 on Thu Apr 12, 2012 3:48 am

degaston, thanks for posting. I know your map was different, but that can be worked with within the foundry. Also, look at making major changes to a map in beta. It may need to be done. Rorke's Drift has had a major change to it, to the point that it was locked so all games can finish before being released again. Knights is also not standard GP and managed to get through happy. Changes and advice have to be the map makers resposabality, not he communities. Pick a path and stick to it. If you believe your way works, then say so and leave the doubters to doubt. You can always do minor tweeks later if proven wrong. But do bare in mind that some of the guys here are very good at there jobs and should be listened to. I wish and hope you come back with the map you made.

Your idea for a sandbox has been touted a lot over the years but I doubt we will ever see it. To many games would need to be played to find all the bugs. That is what beta is for. A lot of games can be made quickly and find those bugs. A map with 10 games in a sand box will never find all the bugs a map in beta will.

hope to see you back soon.
Sergeant 1st Class koontz1973
Cartography Assistant
Cartography Assistant
 
Posts: 7538
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:57 am
Medals: 116
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 (9)

Re: Decline in map standards.

Postby degaston on Thu Apr 12, 2012 11:16 am

Yes, it might be possible for me to get my map through the system. But my point was that the main reason map standards have declined (or at least not progressed very much) is because the system is severely flawed. Game-play and testing should be the primary focus from the start, and you shouldn't need to have a pretty map in order to test it. I understand that this is not likely to change, but if the main problem is ignored, then this thread (and others like it) are like:
Fat Guy: I can't run very fast.
Doctor/Spouse/Friends/Etc.: You need to lose some weight.
Fat Guy: Well, that's never going to happen. Maybe some new running shoes will help.

I would never develop software on a system where:
1. I could only run the program after it was released as a Beta, and
2. I had to finish the user interface before I could test the logic.
I wouldn't expect to find every bug during my testing, but I could certainly find any big problems. And whether you want to call it Beta testing or a sandbox or whatever, unproven maps should not be played for points, and new testing should not be blocked just because some people are in the middle of a game. If a major change is required, just kill all Beta games for that map and let them start over if they want.

Looking back over my map thread, I can't say I really know what was expected of me at the end. There were many suggestions (all of which I responded to), but I didn't see any clear consensus about which ones should be used. I wasn't sure myself whether the bonuses and neutrals were good, or if I should add more territories or have The Motive bombard the suspects.

Updating the graphics seemed pointless if these things were just going to change again, so the only thing I could think of to do was to try to play it. It's too big to play on paper, so I started working on a playing program, but that's an even bigger project than the map, so I just didn't have the time. No new suggestions came in, but it hadn't received the next stamp either. (Though it doesn't make much sense to me how a gameplay stamp can be awarded without anyone ever, you know, actually playing it.) So I'd be happy to finish the XML and start trying it out, but doing anything else seems like a waste of time.
User avatar
Colonel degaston
 
Posts: 375
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: Decline in map standards.

Postby DiM on Thu Apr 12, 2012 11:41 am

degaston has a very good point. a closed circuit testing system would be wonderful.
“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: 10390
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: Decline in map standards.

Postby koontz1973 on Thu Apr 12, 2012 11:49 am

DiM wrote:degaston has a very good point. a closed circuit testing system would be wonderful.


What do you think lackattack is. While we have all been waiting on sully, he is having the time of his life playing Knights & Warlocks. :D
Sergeant 1st Class koontz1973
Cartography Assistant
Cartography Assistant
 
Posts: 7538
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:57 am
Medals: 116
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 (9)

Re: Decline in map standards.

Postby Gillipig on Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:51 pm

koontz1973 wrote:
DiM wrote:degaston has a very good point. a closed circuit testing system would be wonderful.


What do you think lackattack is. While we have all been waiting on sully, he is having the time of his life playing Knights & Warlocks. :D

I think they both mean in an earlier stage of development. Instead of having XML as the last thing, degaston is basically saying graphics should be the last stage. What makes this suggestion unrealistic is that it would require a lot more work and activity from the site programmers (who at the moment is just lack). And untill we have another guy on that job it just can't be done. I also think it would be pointless to do all this work with making the XML code and gameplay features perfect, before we have a clue if the guy is skilled and dedicated enough to create a good looking map. Now it's true that most people don't really care much for graphics, if the gameplay features are awesome they'll play it almost regardless of the graphics. But we still want good looking maps to come out of the foundry. I do agree with you though degaston that the focus on graphics over gameplay is pretty absurd when we consider what really matters, but your suggestion is not plausible with the current amount of programming hours put down on the site.
AoG for President of the World!!
I promise he will put George W. Bush to shame!
User avatar
Lieutenant Gillipig
 
Posts: 3053
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 1:24 pm
Medals: 38
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (6) Tournament Contribution (3)

Re: Decline in map standards.

Postby koontz1973 on Thu Apr 12, 2012 1:18 pm

Gillipig, it is not plausible, even if it was possible. When you consider that some maps in the beta stage have had hundreds of games played, on all settings, only then can the bugs in game play be found and sorted. Can you imagine how long it would take you to play your Nigeria map with you a seven friends on every setting, covering all possible drops bonuses and luck. It just cannot be done. That is why the GP stamp comes before graphics. To iron out anything major that a map maker would like. Map makers need to be able to say no to ideas, while also listening to the ones that have some experience.
Sergeant 1st Class koontz1973
Cartography Assistant
Cartography Assistant
 
Posts: 7538
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:57 am
Medals: 116
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 (9)

Re: Decline in map standards.

Postby DiM on Thu Apr 12, 2012 1:33 pm

koontz1973 wrote:Gillipig, it is not plausible, even if it was possible.


it is both plausible and possible.
back in 2007 i first learned that a clone of CC exists. a secondary site where new game settings and options are tested before implementation. i first heard about it when they used it to test speed games before introducing them. then i heard about it again when they tested 8p games.
if i remember correctly some regular people (non teamCC) had access to this testing site, which actually makes me wonder yet again why mapmakers (who are the backbone of CCs content) aren't allowed.
sure, not everybody should be allowed to get there, perhaps only experienced map makers, or foundry regulars, but at least allow some to go and test. heck, it would be cool if only a testing comity would be allowed. it would still be better than nothing.
but since this testing facility has been around for so many years and access to the map makers has not been granted it's pretty clear it will never be. it's not like it's a new feature that needs extra coding and implementation. it already exists, lack just doesn't care to share it ;)
“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: 10390
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: Decline in map standards.

Postby degaston on Thu Apr 12, 2012 4:45 pm

Gillipig wrote:I think they both mean in an earlier stage of development. Instead of having XML as the last thing, degaston is basically saying graphics should be the last stage.
I don't want to try to force anyone else to work my way. I just think that the system needs to be more flexible. Simpler maps that don't use a lot of special xml features should probably continue to be more "graphics-based". You're not likely to have a lot of gameplay issues that you can't determine from just looking at the map. But a map like mine really needs a more flexible process where alternatives can be tested quickly and without having to get the graphics nailed down first.
Gillipig wrote:I also think it would be pointless to do all this work with making the XML code and gameplay features perfect, before we have a clue if the guy is skilled and dedicated enough to create a good looking map.
If someone has a good idea, but no graphics skill, drawing a crude map in paint, and making an xml should be enough to begin testing the game-play. I thought there were people on here who could team up with them to make it look nice once they know the game is playable. But why would they want to put a lot of graphics effort into a game that may never be any good.
Gillipig wrote:Now it's true that most people don't really care much for graphics, if the gameplay features are awesome they'll play it almost regardless of the graphics. But we still want good looking maps to come out of the foundry.
I certainly prefer a good looking, map over an ugly one. And bad graphics can ruin what might otherwise be a good map. But I'd rather play an ugly map that's fun and interesting, than a good looking one that is boring or has game-play problems.

koontz1973 wrote:When you consider that some maps in the beta stage have had hundreds of games played, on all settings, only then can the bugs in game play be found and sorted. Can you imagine how long it would take you to play your Nigeria map with you a seven friends on every setting, covering all possible drops bonuses and luck. It just cannot be done. That is why the GP stamp comes before graphics. To iron out anything major that a map maker would like. Map makers need to be able to say no to ideas, while also listening to the ones that have some experience.
Some bugs may show up quickly, while others may only occur with a particular combination of settings. A more complicated the map has a greater need for early testing. Big bugs are more likely to require a major revision of the map, while smaller bugs may only need minor changes.
User avatar
Colonel degaston
 
Posts: 375
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: Decline in map standards.

Postby lostatlimbo on Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:32 am

This whole thread seems so pointless to me. Its all a matter of taste and preference what is good, bad, better, worse, etc. Some people love maps I can't stand, while other hate maps I love (or make). To each their own.

I will echo that it is tough starting out. It was hard to keep going on Portland, because it felt like it wouldn't get made and I was wasting my time, but I'm glad I stuck with it.

At the end of the day though, I get the sense Lack doesn't put as much value into the Foundry as we would. I can't blame him, as there's no way to tie new map tools to increased revenue.

However, if he ran with my 'premium' maps idea (only select maps available for free, others only available to paying customers), he could see an increase in premium sign ups and put more into the foundry and give something back to his top mapmakers.
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: Decline in map standards.

Postby degaston on Fri Apr 13, 2012 8:55 am

For those interested, koontz1973 has started a new thread for this discussion:
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=127&t=168969
User avatar
Colonel degaston
 
Posts: 375
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)

Previous

Return to Foundry Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Login