Map Organization Project [Ver 3 - Pg 13]

[DiM]

The complexity function stated that there was a max of 10 from each of the 3 components (adjusted terrs, adjusted continents + avg continent bonus, and gimmicks).

ah ok then with the 10 as max attainable it means AoM would get 30.00 score in the complexity chart.

which would make it as complex as possible. and that's not true.

the complexity difference between AoM and doodle is not that big and also with the 10 max rule that would also lead to another problem.

So AoM would be rated 30 instead of 78. let's say somebody makes another map that would get 1000 score (if it weren't for the 10 max rule) they would both be listed as 30 when in fact one would be far more complex according to the formula.

No - it would NOT rate a 30. I've already posted what it would be in terms of terrs (58/9) which is 6.44 and gimmicks (7.00). So even with a 10 for continents it would be 23.44 (not 30). Although, there aren't many maps with MORE gimmicks - but (except for the shared resources which is already accounted for in the continent section) the gimmicks are straight forward.

Here is the calculation for World 2.1 (notice it is NOT Insane - just at the high end of Tough).

= 112/9 + (22/3 + 73/22) + (dead continents .25 + 1 gimmick .25)

= 12.44 --> 10 + (7.33 + 3.27) --> + .50

= 10 + 10 + .50

= 20.50


-- Aerial Attack

bah so i calculated wrong. it doesn't really matter. as i already said having a max 10 disrupts the results as in theory a map with 31 difficulty and a map with 1000 diff would both be listed as being 30 when in fact one is much much more complex.

and if you take ut the max 10 then AoM and AoR skyrocket and reach really high values that don't reflect the reality.

complexity can't be quantified because of the many subjective factors that intervene. read my long post on previous page.

[AndyDufresne]

I remember long ago...that someone suggested something similar to the user rating...except it was just Map Popularity based on number of plays a month.

I think this idea was also couple with another map organization idea of "The Fold".

Basically like a newspaper, certain articles and headlines are "Above the Fold"...Maps are that popular, based on the mentioned above calculation, would be 'Displayed Above the Fold', I.E. as Icons with Thumbnails...and those not so popular would be displayed 'Below the Fold' as a list perhaps (You would have the option to expand the list to see all also).

I don't know if I'm in favor of this idea, but I just thought I'd mention it since I recalled an old suggestion.


--Andy

[Coleman]

I always believe in power to the players, so if I come up with an arbitrary number like complexity that is derived in some process that most of us can agree on players should have the option to categorize by it.

If it turns out we can't ever agree on it I'll scrap it, but I'd like to try.

I like each gimmick having it's own value, it makes my excel file uglier, but the uglier it is the more the numbers that come out of it actually mean something.

If I end up allowing 0 to 30 I'm going to want to divide by 3 in the end because I think people are naturally used to scales that top out at 10.

Anyway, we already put together a relatively solid argument for a ranking system and a feedback system. What we need to decide is if we want players to also be able to change the map display with categories.

If yes we need to come up with ways to do that, right now we have:

Alphabetical

• What We Have Now
• Default Setting

Map Size

• 18-36 Small: 10 Maps
• 37-47 Normal: 31 Maps
• 48-66 Large: 16 Maps
• 67+ Huge: 7 Maps
• (Will Be Link To Exact List)

Map type (Fiction, geography, historical Abstract, ect)

Rating

• (depends on the system you set up)

Complexity/Difficulty

• 0.00-1.99 Simple/Easy: 10 Maps
• 2.00-3.49 Normal/Medium: 32 Maps
• 3.50-5.49 Complex/Hard: 13 Maps
• 5.50+ Insane: 10 Maps
• (Will Be Link To Exact List)
• Going to need to redo this with the complexity thing changing.

I'd like to hear more feedback on a good way to split maps up by theme since right now the most we have is WidowMaker's post on page 2 I believe.

[DiM]

why do we need to split the maps by theme or by complexity or number of terits?
it will help with nothing and they will actually do more harm than good.

a. split by terit number. it doesn't do any good other than telling the ~ terit count. nothing about the complexity of the map or about the theme will be said.
b. by theme. again it will provide insufficient info and it won't say anything about how complex or how popular a map is.
c. by complexity. impossible to quantify it will only lead to confusion and harm for the maps that come out as really complex.

the best way to sort them is by a ranking system and the best way to describe them is by implementing map feedback. it's probably the most accurate means of offering info about a map's popularity and about it's features and stuff, because in the feedback page there can be a link to a description made by the autor with various info on gimmicks theme story etc.

[edbeard]

Well to be honest, a combination of most of these things is the best idea. You can't know what criteria new users (and this is what it is mostly for I think?) will use to play maps.

Some will want to play by size, others by type of map, and maybe most by ranking of that map.


So, the ability to choose how to split up the maps would probably be the best idea (suggested by WidowMakers I think?).

1. There would be options to list alphabetically or by ranking.
2. There would be options to keep the maps in one list, or separate by type, or size.


Honestly, I think idea might be too complicated for Lack to take seriously. If you're going to choose one of these criteria for separating maps, then size is probably the best because this at least gives you a better idea of the length of the game you will play (yes small maps can have long games and large maps can have short games, and game options can alter this hugely, but in general it works fairly well).

[Qwert]

I think that is best to split to map what present:
-Geographical
-Historical
-Fiction map
-Abstract
these is best to do.

[DiM]

I think that is best to split to map what present:
-Geographical
-Historical
-Fiction map
-Abstract
these is best to do.

and what about maps that fit in 2 categories or none?

[DiM]

If you're going to choose one of these criteria for separating maps, then size is probably the best because this at least gives you a better idea of the length of the game you will play (yes small maps can have long games and large maps can have short games, and game options can alter this hugely, but in general it works fairly well).

by size you are refferring to number of terits, right?

then i'll have to say the number of terits doesn't necessrily reflect in the duration of the game. i've seen 50 round games on doodle earth and i've seen 3 round games on Age of Realms. and there's a huge size difference.

not to mention that with the right settings any map can be finished in less than 10 rounds or it can take more than 50. it all depends on settings and opponents not map size. as a matter of fact in my opinion the number of terits only influences the duration of the game as low as 10%, 40% are the settings and 50% the opponents.

so sorting the maps by number of terits is useless since it offers absolutelly no usefull info. and if we need a sorting method that offers no info on the map then the curren alphabetical one is the best.

[edbeard]

DiM, I'm not impressed by your reading comprehension at all.

If we're talking about new users, which is, I think why this is being done for the most part, then Size (number of territories) IS a good way for them to distinguish between maps. It's a very basic way that they can see separation and then by further inspection, they can see which maps in that category fit their needs.


But, I think what the wide range of opinions in this thread has showed us is that there is no ONE way to sort the maps that everyone will think is best. Therefore, the best way is to offer multiple ways for people to view the different maps.

[Coleman]

But, I think what the wide range of opinions in this thread has showed us is that there is no ONE way to sort the maps that everyone will think is best. Therefore, the best way is to offer multiple ways for people to view the different maps.

Agreed

I agree with qwert

Geographical
Historical
Fiction
Abstract

Because some may fall into more than one we are going to give them an order of priority:

1) Historical
2) Abstract
3) Fiction
4) Geographical

If something is historical it goes into that category first, even if it may be more than one of the above and so on down to Geographical if it fits no where else.

[Coleman]

All the first posts have been updated with more gimmicks, gimmick complexity values, and the new formula along with results.

[Coleman]

I'm going to start posting this over and over again as we update it, like a map. Please keep in mind this post to lackattack is our end goal.

Version 3

Changes

• Removed Categories
• Improved the Information Page portion of the post
• Merged Rating System and Map Feedback into one suggestion
• Added information to Rating & Feedback, including peripheral links

Our Evolving Post To Lackattack

Greetings from the Map Foundry!

We in the foundry have begun to realize that as we add more and more maps to your game the learning curve for new players continues to increase.

It was never our intent to contribute towards alienating new players by shoving a giant list of unfamiliar maps down their throats. We recognize that when you came up with the alphabetical listing for the maps you had a great idea in putting Classic first, as it allows new players to instantly find something familiar right away.

Unfortunately, these new players often eventually want to try new maps and right now the alphabetical list, while convenient in many instances, is not the best medium for new players to decide what their second map should be.

So the foundry has been hard at work to provide you with a list of possible solutions to this problem.

We want players to be able to find maps that suit them quickly and efficiently in a way that is comfortable to them.

With that in mind We've come up with a few effective ways of helping new users identify which maps would be good for them to try.

1) Info Links Under The Pictures

These would be well written information about each map. This information would include:
• number of territories and continents
• the gameplay features present
• accompanying story if relevant
• map background, recommended gameplay settings
• and a helpful description of the map.
We suggest implementing this feature in a fashion similar or identical to these peripherals that WidowMakers has created:
http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/6016 ... eenwv2.jpg
http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/1179/mapinfoab0.jpg (I'll html encode the information posts for you)
http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/5226 ... eensq8.jpg

2) Community Map Rating & Feedback System

Next to the links we brought up in 1) There could be 5 CC stars. A perfect map has 5 red cc star. A horrible map has 5 gray cc stars.

These stars are an average rating from players who have completed the maps. Our idea is at the end of the game when you load up the links for players to leave feedback for one another you also give them the option to rate and leave feedback for the map.

Under our system players can only rate maps they have played and they can only rate once, but just like player feedback a player can alter this rating at their leisure.

In addition on the find games screen and start a game screen we think it would be beneficial for players to be able to switch between sorting by A-Z and sorting by Rating.

These ratings and feedback could show up like a profile page for the map. We have not yet built a peripheral for that, but here are some for portions of the feature:
http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/6223 ... eenhd5.jpg
http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/9895 ... ackjr8.jpg

It is our sincere and greatest hope that you are willing to work with us and our ideas to improve your website. We have put a lot of work into them and are waiting to hear from you.

Thank you.

[yeti_c]

then i'll have to say the number of terits doesn't necessrily reflect in the duration of the game. i've seen 50 round games on doodle earth and i've seen 3 round games on Age of Realms. and there's a huge size difference.

That's because you need to fix the gameplay of AOR!!

C.

[Qwert]

Agreed

I agree with qwert

Geographical
Historical
Fiction
Abstract

Because some may fall into more than one we are going to give them an order of priority:

1) Historical
2) Abstract
3) Fiction
4) Geographical

If something is historical it goes into that category first, even if it may be more than one of the above and so on down to Geographical if it fits no where else.

Almost forget you can put like these
1.Historical
2.Abstract
3.Fiction
4.Geographical
5.All maps
Then people can go direct to see all maps.

[MrBenn]

2) Community Map Rating System

Next to the links we brought up in 1) There could be 5 CC stars. A perfect map has 5 red cc star. A horrible map has 5 gray cc stars.

These stars are an average rating from players who have completed the maps. Our idea is at the end of the game when you load up the links for players to leave feedback for one another you also give them the option to rate the map.

Under our system players can only rate maps they have played and they can only rate once.

[color=blue]

I wonder if the maps could be rated for complexity (easy, normal, hard etc) rather than a general rating??

While it makes sense for each player to only rate each map once, I'm of the opinion that this rating should be adjustable... ie. The first time you play a map you might hate it (if you get blitzed by something unexpected, for example), but after several plays, you might appreciate it a bit more, and think that it deserves a different rating? Also, if you can only rate a map once, I think the negatives (by people who've just lost) would outweigh the positives?

[Aerial Attack]

You forgot to edit Feedback #1 and ask if people thought those were the appropriate gimmick values. Or do people think they should be higher/lower (and if so, why).

-- Aerial Attack

[Coleman]

You're right. I was meaning once in the same way you can only leave feedback once. I guess I should specify that.

[Aerial Attack]

2) Community Map Rating System

Next to the links we brought up in 1) There could be 5 CC stars. A perfect map has 5 red cc star. A horrible map has 5 gray cc stars.

These stars are an average rating from players who have completed the maps. Our idea is at the end of the game when you load up the links for players to leave feedback for one another you also give them the option to rate the map.

Under our system players can only rate maps they have played and they can only rate once.

[color=blue]

I wonder if the maps could be rated for complexity (easy, normal, hard etc) rather than a general rating??

While it makes sense for each player to only rate each map once, I'm of the opinion that this rating should be adjustable... ie. The first time you play a map you might hate it (if you get blitzed by something unexpected, for example), but after several plays, you might appreciate it a bit more, and think that it deserves a different rating? Also, if you can only rate a map once, I think the negatives (by people who've just lost) would outweigh the positives?

The system would be like our current feedback system. Until the game has been archived, you can edit your feedback. I believe you can always withdraw your feedback. As for negatives outweighing positives ... this could be true, but I highly doubt it. Maybe people don't give neg feedbacks for fear of retaliation - but there are plenty who do anyways. The same will be said for maps (of course w/o the fear of reprisals). My guess is that 80-90% of the feedbacks will be valid.

-- Aerial Attack

[DiM]

DiM, I'm not impressed by your reading comprehension at all.

If we're talking about new users, which is, I think why this is being done for the most part, then Size (number of territories) IS a good way for them to distinguish between maps. It's a very basic way that they can see separation and then by further inspection, they can see which maps in that category fit their needs.


But, I think what the wide range of opinions in this thread has showed us is that there is no ONE way to sort the maps that everyone will think is best. Therefore, the best way is to offer multiple ways for people to view the different maps.

mate i already explained simple sorting by terit number doesn't offer any valuable info for the new users. absolutely none at all. it doesn't say anything about popularity theme length of the game story proposed game modes. nothing. it's just an arbitrary and useless sorting just like the alphabetical one we have now. and why change the alphabetical one with a terit count one if there are no advantages.

why can't ONE sorting method be best? why can't the rating method be that ONE? a rating method with a feedback system for maps will offer all the info a new player needs.

[DiM]

But, I think what the wide range of opinions in this thread has showed us is that there is no ONE way to sort the maps that everyone will think is best. Therefore, the best way is to offer multiple ways for people to view the different maps.

Agreed

I agree with qwert

Geographical
Historical
Fiction
Abstract

Because some may fall into more than one we are going to give them an order of priority:

1) Historical
2) Abstract
3) Fiction
4) Geographical

If something is historical it goes into that category first, even if it may be more than one of the above and so on down to Geographical if it fits no where else.

come on this is absurd why group maps like that?
this is yet another method of complicating things without any real advantage. and who decides that abstract should be last and historical second?

really people, come on why are you trying to complicate things so much without the slightest advantage gained.

[DiM]

then i'll have to say the number of terits doesn't necessrily reflect in the duration of the game. i've seen 50 round games on doodle earth and i've seen 3 round games on Age of Realms. and there's a huge size difference.

That's because you need to fix the gameplay of AOR!!

C.

age of realms was just an example. it has nothing to do with the map itself.

as i said in that post (which you cunningly split to quote what you needed) the number of terits is only 10% responsible for game duration.

40% are the settings and 50% the opponents.

doodle earth no cards 6p assassin between majors or higher can last as much as 50 rounds.
while world 2.1 1v1 escalating major vs cook can end in 5 rounds.

seriously number of terits is very very little related to the game length.

[DiM]

1) Info Links Under The Pictures

These would be well written (we aren't sure by who yet) information about each map. This information would include how to play, interesting features, individual map statistics, etc.

i love this one.

2) Community Map Rating System

Next to the links we brought up in 1) There could be 5 CC stars. A perfect map has 5 red cc star. A horrible map has 5 gray cc stars.

These stars are an average rating from players who have completed the maps. Our idea is at the end of the game when you load up the links for players to leave feedback for one another you also give them the option to rate the map.

Under our system players can only rate maps they have played and they can only rate once.

this is the best way of sorting maps. clear indication of a map's quality

3) Map Feedback System

Players have feedback, why not maps? This is an alternate idea for the Map Rating System where each map gets a profile page and can have feedback left for it by players that have played on them.

i totally agree with this one too. each player can only leave 1 feedback that can be edited at a later time or deleted completely. however somebody must carefully moderate those feedbacks because i'm sure we'll have many in this form:

Negative. this is a crappy map because i lost on it.

so anything not factual, offensive, spam, etc must be removed.

4) Map Sorting By Categories (Still working on this part)

On the game finder and start a game screen players can choose between different ways of sorting the maps. When they click one the display changes and the maps split up into categories. Inside these categories they would display alphabetically as normal.

why sort the maps by categories? why complicate things? a new user wants a fresh fast way to get a game started. he needs all the info in 1 place easy accessible with 1 click and the rating system + feedback system and the info page offer just that. why add lots of other buttons for all kinds of sorting methods especially since those sorting methods don't offer anything valuable.
each time you want to implement a sorting method ask yourself a few questions:
How relevant is this sorting method?
What are the advantages?
What are the disadvantages?

Map Size

• 18-36 Small: 10 Maps
  
• 37-47 Normal: 31 Maps
• 48-66 Large: 16 Maps
• 67+ Huge: 7 Maps
• (Will Be Link To Exact List)

How relevant is this sorting method?
not very relevant. it doesn't offer valuable info, in fact it doesn't add anything that isn't already present in the map info link presented at #1.

What are the advantages?
none

What are the disadvantages?

it will confuse people into thinking a small map will offer a fast game and a large one a lengthier game. which is totally wrong because terit count has almost nothing to do with the duration of a game. it's all about settings and opponents.
as i previously stated a doodle earth no cards 6p assassin between majors or higher can last as much as 50 rounds, while world 2.1 1v1 escalating major vs cook can end in 5 rounds.

Map Type

• Historical
• Abstract
• Fictional
• Geography
• (Will Be Link To Exact List)

How relevant is this sorting method?
more relevant than the previous one but again it doesn't add anything that isn't already present in the map info link presented at #1.

What are the advantages?
none

What are the disadvantages?
it can lead to confusion especially for the maps that fit in more than 1 category because by ignoring 1 or more themes and selecting the most "important" one you actually do harm to that map. for example widow makers' "time and place" map fits in all 4 categories but according to this system it will be included in historical. come on seriously now that would be a tremendous drawback for that map.

Rating Complexity

• 0.00-3.66 Simple: 15 Maps
• 3.67-4.24 Normal: 22 Maps
• 4.25-5.99 Complex: 19 Maps
• 6.00+ Insane: 11 Maps
• (Will Be Link To Exact List)

How relevant is this sorting method?
it could be very relevant if there was a proper way of quantifying complexity. but there isn't one so it's relevance plummets to zero.

What are the advantages?
again there could be many advantages but for the said reason there isn't a single one.

What are the disadvantages?
ohohoho. don't even get me started here. this is the most flawed sorting method. it has so many disadvantages i won't even be bothered to explain them again. just read this post

[Coleman]

Does anyone agree with DiM regarding categories?

[mibi]

what DiM said.

[DiM]

Does anyone agree with DiM regarding categories?

yes