natty_dread wrote:Many non-mapmaker Foundry visitors seem to feel a bit intimidated by the later forums, the gameplay & graphics workshops. The melting pot is currently getting the bulk of the posts simply because it is easier to approach...
While I am in general agreement with this assessment, I think there is one other factor to consider- maps that advance to the Gameplay & Graphics workshops are more refined than maps in the Melting Pot, and thus have less obvious flaws. It's both easier and 'safer' to criticize Melting Pot maps because they have a lot of room for improvement. However, when I look at maps in the Graphics forum I usually don't see any glaring "errors" (this sometimes applies in the Gameplay workshop as well).
Part of the reason for this is that maps often get gameplay tweaking while sitting in the Melting Pot, and graphical tweaking while sitting in the Gameplay workshop. Advancement from these forums often involves a more general improvement of the map, rather than specific improvement of a map's stength of concept, and then specifically improving gameplay and then concentrating on graphics.
So, by the time a map has reached the Graphics workshop, it is a strong map overall, rather than simply strong on concept and gameplay and possibly weak on graphics.
I am not criticizing this phenomenon; I understand that creative endeavors defy all attempts at concrete analysis. To try to standardize a process as ephemeral and mysterious as creation is foolish, and ultimately frustrates the potential of creators. However, as the forums currently operate, the mods seem to desire overall improvement before advancing a map. Definition and strength of concept are not enough to get a map out of the Melting Pot; a certain minimum of graphics and gameplay must be in evidence as well.
I cannot help but wonder, what if maps could pursue alternate routes to the various forums- so that they could improve overall between forums, or improve in each specific aspect one after another? Then, the later forums might still contain maps that had some of the 'obvious' flaws that visitors could more easily comment upon.
natty_dread wrote:Question to the casual visitors of the Foundry: what would you like to see in the map threads of the Foundry, that would help you leave feedback and suggestions for the mapmaker? What measures could the mapmakers take to make you feel more welcome to comment on their work?
I've already commented in my typical windbag fashion on this subject, but I'll repeat the salient points.
The Melting Pot is an overloaded forum that could use some cleaning; threads that haven't been commented on in a year or longer should be moved, recycled or deleted.
Threads themselves could often use some cleaning when they rise above 10 pages, but since this seems impractical to accomplish, they should instead have a really good, short first post. If necessary, put all of the in-depth details on a second post that more interested readers can delve into.
Mapmakers should have a short first post on their thread that has, preferably in this order:
1) A clear, concise explanation of what the map concept and goals are.
2) An outline of what the mapmaker specifically wants to get feedback about; too many mapmakers leave this stuff "buried" in their thread (e.g., 'see my post on page 34'). Take a look at natty_dread's current map threads for examples- LunarWar and Nordic Countries do an excellent job with this.
3) What the foundry mods' current concerns are for this map. I didn't mention this in my previous post, but I think it would help relay to the mods what the mapmaker thinks that they want, and relay to visitors what they can do to help advance the map.
4) A map intended for a layman that comes before any other maps (i.e., before '88' test maps, before wire maps, etc.) or, if you don't have a map made yet, an in-depth explanation of your concept and goals from #1 above.
5) Technical details and previous versions last, preferably hidden as spoilers.
Also, it's good for mapmakers to respond to all feedback given, even if they're disappointed in the content, and to respond in a positive manner that gives guidance to the visitor for future feedback.
natty_dread wrote:Question to everyone: what kind of actions would you hope to see from the Foundry moderators & website administration to improve the Foundry?
If they could list, right from their first post and every post that they make thereafter, absolutely everything that they feel is necessary for a map to meet the minimum requirements of the forum and advance to next, then I think both visitors to the thread and mapmakers would feel more confident in their posts. Even if the requirements are very general/vague, it still would help to know that the list is exhaustive rather than just one step in a long chain. Then, what I proposed above in #3 for first posts in a thread would be a true Bottom Line list of needs for the map, rather than just a piece of a larger puzzle.
Of course, the foundry mods aren't gods- just very wise and experienced people- so I'd expect that the "exhaustive" list of requirements might get edited after further consideration or major map changes. I do think, however, it would help to give a mapmaker a clear list of the forum requirements that the foundry mods feel are met and those that are not, rather than just advice and guidance from time to time (which seems much appreciated as well, btw).
The Guides to Mapmaking need to eventually be updated to fit the current Foundry process.
Also, for the Guides to Mapmaking, it would help to see some examples of good and bad Design Briefs, and examples of good and bad first posts for each of the four forums (what a map should roughly look like at each stage, what info should be included in the first post). Along with these examples, it would help to have reasons why they are good or bad. The same could also be said for the guides to feedback, but I don't think that's as much of a concern at the moment.
Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 10:43 am
